Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the January 5th Kittyhawk Town Council meeting. uh at 6:00 and we'll get started. For those who are able, please stand and join me in a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Do I have a Do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? So move. Do I second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Dylan. Let's see. All in favor? Hi. Hi.

Let's madame clerk. Do we have anyone signed up for public comment tonight? Yes, ma'am. We do. And we also have a uh email that email from a citizen who would like to have this read into the record. Okay.

So, this email was from Ken Goldmith and Ashley Goldmith of 504 First Light Flight Run. We are full-time residents of Kittyhawk who own property in Kittyhawk Woods close to the site of the proposed RV park expansion. We are unable to attend tonight's town council meeting and request that this letter be read into the public record at the meeting. We urge you to deny the special use permit for an RV park at 4352B the Woods Road. This proposed development will cause serious public health and safety concerns and lead to significant environmental damage. Furthermore, the application fails to meet specific requirements of the town code and is contrary to numerous policies of the camel land use plan. As you know, almost the entire parcel is in the AE flood zone subject to a high likelihood of flooding. Any home proposed for this area would have been would have had to been elevated, but because these are RVs, our code simply requires that they be moved every 180 days or be ready for highway use. The applicant essentially concedes that these RVs will be semi-permanent fixtures with absentine owners who will visit when convenient. It is difficult to believe that all the RVs on site will be moved in the scant time available before a major storm hits Kittyhawk. It seems much more likely that some or many will remain to be flooded and or destroyed, creating a major public health and safety problem. Furthermore, serious environmental damage to both the immediate neighborhood and the town as a whole will result from this proposed RV park expansion. The proposal creates massive site clearing, including the removal of almost every tree on three quarters of the upland area of the site.

This kind of intensive development is directly counter to the camel land use plans accommodate and adapt goals for this property and is specifically contrary to policies 4.1 and 4.3. In addition, the applicant's proposal to build numerous separate septic systems rather than A single community sewage disposal system required by the town code and not to provide a sewage dumping station will inevitably result in future water pollution that will be a burden on all Kittyhawk residents. Building a slew of new septic systems in an area that the land use plan highlights as especially vulnerable to septic system failure is a sure path to disaster. While septic plan may satisfi While the septic plan may satisfy the county environmental health department, it will substantially increase water pollution in the local waterways and add to an already disastrous pollution levels in Kittyhawk Bay and the Alvin Sound. As noted earlier, this proposal violates several specific requirements of the town code. No community sewage disposal, no sewage dumping station, a dead end road exceeding 1,000 ft, no culdeac. Perhaps more importantly, it invi it violates the spirit and the intent of the camel land use plan that citizens of Kittyhawk worked so hard to develop. We believe that this proposed use is both inappropriate and unsuitable for this location and we urge you to deny the application for the special use permit on the grounds that it does not satisfy any of the special use findings that we are required to make under section 42-100B8 of the code. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns about this application. We hope that you will deny this special use permit and

protect the health, safety, and environmental quality of our community. Again, Ashley Wilson. I'm sorry. Do you mind do you mind repeating the address of that please? Um 504 White Run. Thank you.

Anybody else? I do not have anyone else currently signed up for public comments. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion to accept the consent agenda? So move. Second. Second from Pete. Okay. Next, we're going to move to um planning. Oh, all in favor. Excuse me. All in favor? I

I Okay. Now, now we can move on to plan. Next is a public hearing. Since this is a quasi judicial hearing, we need to swear in all of those who may wish to speak during this public hearing.

And that would include any member of the public who is going to speak. if you would just come up. I think we'll probably do like we did last time, do everything at once. Uh so yeah, if anybody from the public wants to speak at this hearing, please do come up and be sworn in. and members of the public speak. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this action shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Casey, would you like to give us an overview of the judicial hearing process, please?

Absolutely. So, as you said, it's quite judicial. So, we're dealing with a scenario where you've already seen one formality. It's a little different than a typical public hearing. Um, we've got sworn testimony that's occurring. The evidence the reason for that is the evidence presented has to be substantial. It has to be material and it has to be competent. So you guys like a judge would be in a courtroom or the deciders of what is substantial, what's material and what's competent. Uh just a very brief breakdown. Substantial would be any evidence that you guys tend to feel shows or proves the elements and the requirements specifications within our code uh concerning this particular application. In other words, whether or not the evidence presented does satisfy those conditions and specifications. Material would be anything relevant to the subject matter at hand. competent is usually where we get into the grayest area and that's where you guys have to make those decisions. I'll give you an example. So we are again qua judicial we're have stepped up from where we generally would be in a public hearing. So for example someone wants to testify as to land value or devaluation of land. Well, you guys are entitled to accept whatever evidence or give whatever weight you want to it. But what the court cases say is, well, then that person should be a certified land appraiser, for example. They should be a professional in the field of land valuation. So that traffic studies, same thing. You would need to be an engineer who generally practices in the area of traffic studies. So that's just an example, but uh you know you guys like I said are the finders and the decision makers here. So you get to decide what you believe is substantial competent and

material tonight. Thank you Gatesy. Do I have a motion to go into um special public hearing? So move second. Okay. All in favor? Hi. We are now in public hearing. Rob, can you provide an overview of what you'll be?

Sure. Um, and I won't read word for word through the packet that was submitted to the council, but I'll give a brief u overview and then turn it over to the applicants to let them uh present. Uh so the proposal uh the applicant's requesting an approval of special use permit to develop an expansion of the existing preserve RV park on their vacant parcel located at 4352B the Woods Road. Uh this is in the BR3 zoning district. RV parks are permitted as a special use permit regulated by the standards of chapter 42 division 4 of town code. Um some of the aspects I'll highlight on going through the the different standards and requirements. Uh 42-6195 requires an approved community sewage disposal system. Um the applicant has proposed separate uh separate septic systems, one for the bath house and one for every two RV spaces. Uh Dear County Environmental Health has um evaluated those sites and um the applicant has provided documentation that it is suitable for what they're proposing. Um the park standards for the culde-sacs and deadend roads um says it shall not exceed 1,000 ft in length measured from the entrance of the center uh measured from the entrance to the center of the turnaround. Um any road designed to be permanent permanently closed shall have a turnaround at the closed end with a minimum rightway diameter of 80 ft. Um the new access road which is shown on the the monitor up here is 675 ft in length measured from the property boundary. Um if measured from the overall park entrance out by uh the Woods Road, the length of the existing access road uh plus the proposed would be approximately 1,090 ft. Um and rather than the 80 foot diameter rideway turnaround, the applicant has proposed the uh the T or the hammerhead T shaped

terminus that you see on the site plan. Um this has been forwarded to the the fire department for their review. No concerns were related to me u based on that turnaround design. Um see one of the other requirements, each park shall provide recreation areas to serve the needs of the anticipated users. Um the site plan does indicate open space area approximately 70 by 75 ft labeled as a recreation area. Um I did hear from Dair County Environmental Health today. That area is shown as a a drain field for the bath house and environmental health indicated that that would not be for their purposes not be able to be used for the recreation area. that it would be grass and mowed occasionally and roped off to uh to prevent damage to the the systems. Um see, RV parks shall provide at least one sewage dumping station approved by county environmental health. Um as I mentioned, the septic systems have been proposed throughout the park instead of a singular uh sewage dumping station uh which effectively serves as multiple sewage dumping stations. And again, environmental health has uh evaluated the site and determined that it would be suitable for what they're proposing. Um, camping units shall be used as temporary quarters or shelter during periods of recreation, vacation, leisure time, or travel, and shall not be used for permanent living quarters. Uh, that would be, I guess, an ongoing condition of approval if the uh special use permit is approved. Uh the project narrative indicates that the intent is to rent spaces on a long-term uh monthly basis so that their patrons can leave the RV for longer periods of time for convenient visits to the area. Uh as long as the RVs are not in one place for greater than 180 days or if they remain highway ready, this would be compliant

with the flood damage prevention ordinance. Um section 42-620 requires a park uh park operator to keep an accurate register containing a record of all RVs owners and occupants of the park. That register shall contain the name, address of the owner in each occupant, license number and state of issue of each licensed vehicle. Uh the space number in which the RV is parked, date of entering the park and date of exiting the park. Um, I included in the staff report that if council does approve the uh the special use permit that a potential condition of approval would be that the park operator will periodically submit that park register to the town so we can uh ensure compliance with that it's being um more of a recreational use than turning into any kind of long-term residential. Um for the land use plan, the property is located in both the accommodate and adapt and the acknowledge and conserve character areas. Um those descriptions from the land use plan were included in your packet. Uh the accommodate and adapt character area is described by the plan as uh an area highly vulnerable to flooding but may occasionally include new elevated structures. Um, acknowledge and conserve is described as low-lying areas that are not suitable for development or areas that are susceptible to natural hazards and inundation. And again, those inserts from the land use plan go into a little more uh detail than just those brief oneliners. Um, following policies and objective uh object objectives relevant to this application and the camel land use plan. Uh policy 3.1, manage land use and development to minimize primary and secondary impacts on resources and existing residents through uh standards for development. Policy 4.1 encourage the preservation of maritime forests, flood planes, marshes, and wetlands through development regulations and land

protection initiatives. Policy 4.3 enhanced tree cover in the town of Kittyhawk. 5.1 Utilize the future land use map, storm surge maps, flood exposure maps, wetlands assessments, and projected sea level rise and flood vulnerability data when considering reszoning and development request and policy 12.1 continue to be a destination for family oriented tourism. Um the special use findings as listed in section 42-100B8 uh of the zoning ordinance. Um, in order to approve the application, the town council must make findings that the proposed special use, uh, does not materially endanger the public health or safety, does meet all required conditions and specifications, will not substantially injure the value adjoining property or be a public nuisance, and will be in harmony with the area in which it's located, and be in general conformity with uh, comprehensive claim. Um, with that, um, that'll be it for my overview. turn over.

Thank you. And I'll be on if there's any questions for Do you Yeah, I was going to say, do you guys first do you have any questions for Rob? Uh, I I do. Rob, u can you the definition just uh as you were reading it says common sanitary and laundry facilities. Um can you clarify laundry facilities? Um the ordinance doesn't have a specific definition for the a laundry facility in there. Um I guess basic understanding be an area to to wash and dry clothes.

Correct. I mean I looked up the definition and that that is what it does consist of a washing machine and dryer. Is there is there anywhere on here that was designed for that? Not that I have seen in the the narrative of the plan. Possibly the applicants could speak more to that. Okay. All right. That's it. That actually makes a question for me. Is there a certain amount of water per gallons per day for laundry facility? That would be health department. Um it may increase the septic meat needs, but um you know, septic or the health department, they they do all the septic permitting. So that would have been in charge of Yeah. They would have to make the comp standards.

Thank you. And Rob, for the public edification, when you say health department, you're referring to Dare County. Dare County Environmental Health. Yeah. Rob, has a plan uh has this plan or a similar plan of this nature been presented to the town in the past?

Um not this plan. Um I I believe it was about 10 years ago or so. I think I I looked at it in September of 2015. there was a a plan for a mobile home or manufactured home park in this area. Um that ended up being denied based on there's a specific requirement in our ordinance for manufactured home parks that they would not be located in floodprone areas and all within the AE flood zone. Um that was the basis for that denial. That same standard is not written into the RV park standards and ordinances. Um that was that's the only other proposal that has occurred in the past 11 years I guess.

Okay. Rob, um I know you mentioned the moving of the recreation facility. Um is there any zoning um town municipal guidance on what can go on top of a septic field? Um that would be regulated by the the environmental health department as well. Um, I think it would be very limited. Um, I don't know. I'm not an expert on that.

Everybody good? Is there a an attorney present for the applicant? I was going to I didn't want to sell you short. If you have any questions for uh Rob, please do. Madam Mayor, members of the council, I'm Bob from the Law Firm in Chapel Hill. I'm representing the applicant, the developer here. Rob, it's nice to see you in person. I just I just have a couple of questions. Sure. And it's really with respect to the uh communication you had today with environmental health. Who was it at the environmental health office you spoke to? Uh it was Josh Colin. Josh Colrin. And And had you reached out to him and he called you back or

uh I Yes, I reached out to him based on a question that I had uh received. Where he received the question from uh Council Dlet.

Very good. Um I also want to make Thank you. I want to make one other comment. There was a a letter that was read into the record here today. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I have no opportunity to cross-examine whoever sent that letter about standing or about any of the other uh issues or expertise that they may have or may not have. And so so I object to that letter being part of the record that you consider for this hearing because we don't know it's it's not substantial, it's not confident, it's not material, there's no ability to cross-examine. So I just want to make sure I get that on the record.

So you guys again, as I said, are the decision makers. I will note a couple things here. The letter was asked to be read into must I think public comment not this particular hearing. So there's one issue as I see it. The other Mr. Hornik is correct. Um it's a qua eye judicial proceeding as I said we step up in the formalities. She want to speak you've got to meet certain requirements at least as far as what you guys consider to be substantial material competent but being here is part of the process. So, just as with any other witness, they can be cross-examined by Mr. Hornet. Now, what is he's asking, if I'm not mistaken here, is that you guys essentially disregard what was said. So, if that's something you guys want to do, then that is certainly something that's within your uh discretion. So,

well, that letter should not influence our decision. That is what Mr. Hornick is saying. realize you can't unring the bell, you know, but I just want to make sure that I have on the record my request that you not consider that as part of your consideration on the application. Okay. Thank you. And I one other last kind of administrative point that I I want to make and it's it's a little bit delicate I suppose but I'm I'm going to ask it anyway. U I want to ask the board if you're a council right now. That's the same.

I represent a bunch of different towns and they're boards, councils, alderman. So it gets confusing, but uh in a in a quasi judicial hearing especially uh and as elected officials, I want to make sure that we do a conflict check and that is that no member of the council, none of the elected officials have any conflict of interest with respect to this application. There's a specific statutory definition of conflict of interest with respect to the governing board. Governing board members shall not vote on any legislative decision regarding the develop development regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter. Um and uh where the outcome of the matter being considered is reasonably likely to have a direct substantial and readily identify readily identifiable financial impact on the member. Um and uh any member a member of any board exercising quasi judicial functions uh pursuing to this chapter this is chapter 160 of the general statutes shall not participate in or vote on any quasi judicial matter uh in a matter that would violate person's constitutional rights to an impartial decision maker. So, I just want to make sure I do this at every hearing that I attend to make sure that we've considered whether anybody's got conflict of interest and if so, put it on the record. Um, and have the council decide whether the conflict requires recusal or excuses. So, that's the last of my preliminary stuff. Uh, what I'd like to do at this point is introduce John Deluchia, who I think you all know. Bob, if I may just real quick,

do any of you uh council members feel as though you have a conflict of interest? I think this board would have already recused itself had it had a member of that one. Just but just for the record, as Mr. Hornick said, u consent is no. I do not do not. Thank you. Perfect. So at this point I'd like to introduce John Deluchia who's the design engineer on the project who can talk to you a little bit about the application about the plans about compliance with some of the requirements etc. Happy new year everybody.

It's nice to be in front of you again. Um my name is John Deluchi. I'm an engineer. I've been practicing engineering here on the Outer Banks for 40 years now. I'm a citizen of Kittyhawk and I've done engineering for you all. occasions and we appreciate that. Um, we spent a lot of time early on looking at a feasibility study for this campground. Um, we laid some things out. We met with talked with the chief of police to see if there was any issues going on back there. I met with Rob several times. Um, we wanted to make sure that we brought a product that was um, acceptable to the to the town. We've met the ordinance. Um Dylan, I'm not sure why um Josh would have said that we couldn't have passive recreational on top of that drain field. I mean, we have the drain fields for the gay pattern school under the football field. We have the drain fields for the um Episcopal Church in in Southern Shores under the playground for the for the daycare center. So, we'll get that worked out. Um there's other areas on the plan where we could show that we could have other passive recreational uses. We met with the health department. It was felt that the multiple smaller drain fields were more suitable than a large drain field that they have. Um and we also designed the the drain fields to accommodate the larger trailers 240 gallons per RV. the state standards are only 125 gallons per RV. So, we we've gone above and beyond because we know that the RVs, the people that drive it today are carrying more than two people in in actuality. Um, we added extra parking spaces so there wouldn't be a parking issue on the site. We have preserved over 25% of the land where

we're not touching it. Um, we had all the oak trees and the the the nice hardwoods located on property and we've tried to work around most all of them. Um we have left a 30-foot buffer along Ash Creek. We have um provided the bath house. Um we can't put a laundry machine in it. Laundry machines depending on on where machine they can go from typically what is goes in an RV park is not a commercial washing machine. It's typically what we would consider like our residential washing machines. Um, and they don't they are not producing a whole lot of waste water these days. They're being very efficient because um we have raised the roadway elevations and the pad elevations up to above the base flood elevation. So any of the RVs that are parked on the site will be above the AE4. It's not above the community club which is eight which we know that um we understand about the mobility of the units. Um we understand that they have to be movable. They have to be roadw worthy. Um the owner um who you'll hear from in a few minutes um has run the existing RV park there for the last 10 years. They've cleaned it up over the last 10 years. I can remember when that was not a very desirable piece of property to go on to years ago. But what they've done has seems to have have really dressed it up. Um we are next door to the the Miss Palm's property which is doesn't look very good. I can just say that. Um, we're kind of tucked back in to the Ash swamp area back to to um and this backs

up to the existing trailer park that's there, the existing RV park that is there. Um, in a minute I'm going to call up Greg Bourne who will tell you a little bit about um the value or lack of of the lack of talk that the proposed plan will not materially endanger or damage the adjacent property owners back. With that, I'm going to um ask questions. Ma'am, ask a question. Yeah.

John, did uh did when you met with Josh Cold Train, did he indicate to you that this project would be approved by Dair County Environmental Health? We already have permits. You have the permits from We have approved permits for the approval. Yeah, the soil evaluation. We've been meeting with Robert Preston about this. Understood. So you have soil evaluations but you don't have a full approval yet. Correct. We have the soil evaluations. We have provided these plans to the county. The only thing that they'll need to do is is purchase the actual separate permit to install. Right. But the soil samples would indicate if you needed 10 inches of field 20 or whatever. Right. Yes.

Okay. And then and then my next question would be um why would it not be considered a commercial use on laundry facility if it's a commercial use by right or not by right but by what it is. What I'm saying is we wouldn't we wouldn't be putting in a commercial machine. Gotcha. We'd be putting a residential machine that doesn't use as much. Gotcha. So again I'm going to ask the same question again. You have done site evaluations but you don't have an actual septic permit yet. We have we have approval. We have Yeah, we have an approval email and we have a soil evaluation. Oh, you got

you would actually have to issue I believe 18 18 we have 18 systems so it was 18 permits. Okay. So, so let me ask another way. You go down there tomorrow and get all 18 if as long as you have it paid for them. You get all 18 tomorrow. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. He has reviewed the the designs um and plans. Speaking of is Mike Norway. He's a professional engineer here in North Carolina. Has worked with me for 24 years. 24 years. Um he's very good at what he does. John, for the sake of the record, do you adopt his answers? Yes. Okay.

Mr. Deluchia, I have a question. During your design, um, did you take into account the fact that the town ordinance states every park shall be provided with an approved community sewage disposal system? And I I I heard what you said about the individual systems and they're oversized and that's great. Thank you for doing that. Um, but the ordinance states shall be a community sewage disposal system. And in my mind, that's a centralized collection and treatment system or a package treatment plant.

We were we were more concerned I'm more concerned about failures of those larger systems. You know, if systematiz fails, then the whole park closes down. If you have a failure of a of a smaller system that's a gravity system that's designed for twice the amount of sewage that's should be expected to go there, I find that that's a better design. and talking with the health department, they felt it was a better design, too. Um, if we did central sewage on this, we'd be cutting every tree out on this property. You know, we wouldn't be able to work with them because, you know, how it is. Mhm. Um,

my concern is that there's a there's a spot that or a handful of spots that end up being the favorite spots and they're going to get overusage and then five spots down, you're going to get an old couple that barely uses any water. In a in a centralized system, you get equalized flow through that. One's using a bunch, another one's not using that much, and it levels out. I have concerns that if it's concentrated with just two spots like that, you're going to get you might get a peak flow in some of them. That's why we've oversized the system.

I mean, rather than setting them up for 120 gallons per campsite, we set them up for 240 gallons per campsite. So, each one of those systems is capable of handling 480 gallons. Two of them connected. 240 gallons per day. Yes. Per day. So, those are 480 gallons per day systems. your design? Yes, sir. Um, I have another question if you don't mind. Sure. Um, during your design, did you notice that uh the the road length? Now, the ordinance states it's measured from the park entrance.

Well, and I would ask you where the park entrance is. It's not the woods road. It's not twice. Okay. Okay. So, where what's your interpretation of the entrance? Well, you got to go across Miss Bomb's property. Mhm. I mean, so you would actually start the measurement on the south side of Miss Bomb's property that has those little trailers on it right there and it would be under 1,000 ft. No, I understand that. But my my concern with that would be if you keep measuring what's new, what's to stop a developer from going a thousand foot, another thousand foot, another thousand foot every single submittal. Before you know it, we've got a mile long road and you're only measuring from the new stuff.

We don't have we don't have to go into that was a hypothetical question, not not case specific, but but you know when we looked at that when you look at where you actually enter the park. Mhm. When you pass Miss B's trail. Okay. Okay, that's under measure to the right. And the second portion of that requirement is all roads designed to be permanently closed shall have a turnaround at the closed end with a minimum rideway diameter of 80 feet more or less a culde-sac.

Right. Is there a reason that you went with the the hammerhead or the tea design? Just because all the steps generate a whole lot more runoff and a whole lot more land and and typically a tam head is suitable for the fire department to be able to turn around. How about the garbage disposal trucks or the RV RVs trying to turn around at the end? We're not expecting to see garbage trucks go up past all these campsites. They've got to get in to the site. Is that correct? To dump the dumpsters, right? And the way the dumpster pad is oriented, you've got to come, you got to go into the site, turn around, and come out. Is that correct? So, you're turning around somewhere.

Turn around. Mhm.

And my other concern is is the uh what's already been mentioned, the recreational area. I I know the ordinance is vague on that. Um my thought is the intention of it is a playground or horseshoe pits or at at a minimum picnic tables a community gathering but most of those features would require subsurface anchors and nothing subsurface needs to go into that wastewater drain field. Is that correct? Nothing nothing should go into the drain field area. Right. Right. I mean we're not planning on putting the playground there. We're not planning on putting a swimming pool there. Okay. Yeah. We could put picnic tables on it. We could put hole boards on it.

Um, we could do a a little disc golf area on it. Um, like I said, I'm not sure why the health department made that comment, especially knowing that we put the drain for K football. You know, we had anticipated that passive. I mean, other things that could be done. I mean, this area is that up on Can you see that? Can you see that? Yeah. Right there. That that area. Yes, sir.

Um, we could use that for recreation. We could put a trail all the way around the property. We can comply with that if the health department has an issue with with with us having some green space there. I mean, we all have drain fields in our backyard, but we plan, right? I I think, you know, I I would imagine there's exceptions, but the intent is no activity on a drain field is my understanding. The intent is no subservice activity on it would be just a green law. Correct. Right.

And my last point I just want to make public is the uh the going back to the wastewater system. Um the ordinance does state an approved community sewage disposal system. approved. Uh meaning that I would prefer to see permits in hand prior to making a decision on that. But why would you want why would you want the developer to have to spend 18 different systems? Um you know, you look at $18,000 to buy permits before you give your approval. That doesn't make sense. I understand it's a risk.

I'm just reading the ordinance. That's all I'm doing. That's all the questions I have for right now.

I I have one, John. It in the ordinance it says that the camping shall be a temporary quarters and and during uh recreation, vacation, leisure time, or travel and shall not be used for permanent living quarters. And it says temporary. And then the applicant is the very next sentence says rent spaces on long term. So it seems like to me that the ordinance was to to make it so people didn't leave things for a long period of time. So leading up to the next question is who's going to be responsible when all of a sudden we have a storm and half of them aren't moved. Who's going to be when they if they do end up in Ashwap? And I was on the board with the with the mobile with the the big definition of what was what. I think this is the third time maybe it might have been when I was on the planning board before when George Wood and the crowd came years ago. So who's going to be responsible? At that time we were worried about the stuff washing and now if they're left we have oils and and everything. It it this is almost to me more of environmental risk than we were when we were talking about the campers that that basically were towed in on a vehicle and left where now we're talking about vehicles being left permanently.

We're talking about they they have I'm going to let Mr. Cash discuss how they run their business and how they do screenings on people and that they rent by the month. Basically, it's a monthly that people can stay on and I'll let him address that in a few minutes but that but that you know nowhere in there says you can't stay more than one month you know say I come in there monthly it I want to stay for three years and I 36 months I mean that's permanent

well the intention is not to have these permanent residences and that's the intention When you look at the ordinance, when you look at the ordinance of what is a permitted use on this property, multifamilies are permitted use on this property. I could put 24 25 3 four bedroomedroom multif family units on this piece of property.

Um I think that's far more dangerous for floodpro um issues because you aren't going to have the cars moving and you're not going to have you're going to have people up on stills obviously, but with the pads raised up to a 5ft elevation and know that the RVs are usually about that high off the ground. We probably going to be somewhere around a seven for the for the lower levels of those of those RV if they're left there. I've seen water at my house up to six and a half. I've seen water at my house maybe maybe up to seven maybe for a very short period of time. Um I don't think that's going to be a problem. I really don't. I mean,

May I follow up with Jeff, please? You say that's not the intention, but how I mean, intentions can change, right? Well, I think that that the ordinance speaks to reporting and having records available. I think Rob addressed that to you just a little bit ago. Um, and we're going to have to compile that. And then my question would be for I guess Casey next. The I mean, would you be willing to I mean, I don't even know if you can do this. Would you be willing to put a a condition in there that it would be short-term and not used as longterm? Are you allowed to do

Well, because I don't like the word intention, you know, my intention could be not to go to work tomorrow, but So, the the FTPO requires no greater than 180 days. Okay? Right. So, in theory, it can't be there more than 180 days. It's not permanent. I mean, I don't think anybody would be able to make the argument that something in existence for only 180 days is a permanent place of living, right? But is your question, could you put a condition on there that says can't be rented for more than 30 days? Is is that what you're No, I I mean, if the if the 180 days kind of negates the

permanent permanent intention changing whatever I'm trying to say, then I'm okay with it. Okay. Well, yes, from an ordinance perspective, from where I'm sitting, right, it's about enforcement. Would that provide us an enforcement an a mechanism to go and enforce someone who's there for longer than 180 days if we're aware? Absolutely. Yes.

Because if I'm not mistaken, the code right now says that in that flood zone you can go up to a year as long as it has trailerability, you know, meaning some point you have to take it off and get it inspected and get your inspection on tie downs and all kinds of stuff with hurricanes and That's all I have. Sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am. Did you have something or Okay.

Okay. Um, just real quick, a couple of follow-ups. Um, uh, back to the the septic real quick. Um, I understand nothing, you know, subsurface activation. Um, are there any EPA guidance or anything on this? Um, since we're waiting for the permits to come back from Dair County, is there any EPA guidance on what should or shouldn't happen on a a septic field? There's state regulations on on drag fields

as far as go on top because most of the time what I've ever seen, it's it's you don't even want to put a picnic table necessarily. The more you compact it down, it gets compacted and then then you have problems. Um, I'm okay with moving the recreation facility behind the bath house, but we've got now is 18 separate systems in between trailers. Is there anything that's going to prevent people from walking on top of those, putting picnic tables, sinking volleyball nets in all those septic fields? Volleyball nets. You see what I'm saying? And because that's the only space between some of those trailers is a septic field. So, you walk out your door and you got a septic field, right? Well, actually, you got some a handful. So,

right. So, you've got some open space where you're not on the drain field. No, I mean, we all have drain fields in our houses and we all use our yards and we all go out of our yards and recreate. Sure. Um, you know, it's no different than that. Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, we're our septic tank absorption rate here on the Outer Banks at large is pretty pretty intense. So, anything we can do to shore up and protect that, especially next to a swamp and at an already low level area where I think the table was 30 in down to hit water, I think on some of the soil samples. and we're bringing

so you got to bring in a lot of fill and and you know I think we noticed that there was a lot of fill being brought in to to adapt and probably make this pads but but then again you know part of the camera says that you shouldn't be adjusting the fill so much on some of these areas especially in the wetlands right has not taken jurisdiction of the the small if you will they have agreed as long as we stayed out of 30 foot buffer um that we would be compliant with with the rules and regulations and we kept out of that.

Okay. So that was my next question leading in and um so the areas of environmental concern that come in what is that 75 ft I think back from the water if I'm not mistaken that crosses over some of those septic pieces. Is that can't be any closer than 50. Okay. So they it doesn't matter if it's in that AEC zone. How about on the um uh road setback of 10 feet? You know, some of them cross over those western lots, the road set back.

We initially were told that we initially were told that that they were going to take jurisdiction over this law. Then we were told that that was they were going to take jurisdiction as public trust waters, not panel waters, not so the 75 foot setback went away. Even though it's still shown on the plan, it has gone away since we've submitted the plan to you. Um, and George Boy is working with us also on compliance with any of the regulations. Okay. So that does that supersede bless you our land use plan? Well, our land use calls out the AEC lines as far as separ.

Okay. Okay. Um and then switching gears, um we're talking a little bit earlier about the traffic um not look not having the um presentation of the existing RV park then and the entrance shown here. There's only one entrance in and one entrance out. And how many lots are in the existing park? 30.

30. Um, okay. And so there's no requirement NC dot or anything that you're aware of that requires more than one ingress egress point for safety or anything like that. I just have one more followup to you and I on Councilman Tilllet's uh question and I didn't really hear the whole question so I apologize when you're asking about the septic the 18 permits or whatever and you were speaking about that being expensive to do especially if we don't have approval by this council. Well, we can approve it and the health department can deny it and vice versa.

But the health department has already approved the plan that we've given. So that's where I'm confused by Councilman Tilllet's question to you. Why spend the the money? You're saying if we don't approve it, why go spend the money on the Right. Exactly. Why spend $18,000 to buy permits that you can't use? Gotcha. And what I was pointing out is our ordinance requires approved. Correct. The way I read it, I mean, I interpret the same way. Mhm. Well, and that can be a condition of approval here. Can you elaborate? We're going to have permits. Can you elaborate on Mr. Wood's findings? It's so the 75 AEC is no longer valid.

Right. Right. He talked to Ron Maldi, the director up there, and he's convinced that it's still public trust water. So, we still need to maintain the 30 foot um vegetated buffer there, but we didn't necessarily need to go. We were prepared to go and do a camp major permit on this, right? And I don't know that I don't know actually because of the workload right now. It's a gorgeous draw to allow us to just call public trust waters and to stay out of the A and we'll be fine. We wouldn't need a camel permit. Stay out of the AEC.

Stay out of the 30 foot. 30 foot the road width heading towards from starting from the park entrance to this. I know your road you've designed is 26. I think that's great. Do you know we did 26 because of the 90° backing it. It makes a little bit easier to be able to do that. Do you know the minimum road width heading all the way to the Woods Road? If if there's any portions that are less than 20 ft wide,

I don't think there are because when we did the development that was called Heron Harbor for her and there years ago that had 30 or 40 units on it and big wastewater system we were clearing everything and I know we put that that first section of roadway in was it pretty absolutely Is that everything from Mr. I have a couple more.

John, earlier you said that the entrance goes through Doc Bomb's property. Is that a Is that a a deed easement for y'all to to Yes, that's a So there is a an it's an easement, not a right away.

Okay. Do um I don't know if I can back up. Um I'm just kind of wondering about this much development through an easement. I if if that instead of a rightway if if this is going through a private piece of property on a easement instead of if they have a clear right away they had road frontage in other words

the the dot bomb's property goes all the way across their entrance and I guess she's I I don't know the agreement but I caught that when you said that the when you were as you're not starting cuz you said the park starts on Dots's property. So, I'm wondering what kind of agreement or if the town has an ordinance that you can't develop that much through a easement or it is, you know, I I I remember when the RV park was going to be put in another area. They said they couldn't do it through an easement by the Judy Ran and and actually at that time the town took it over as a state street and enabled them to develop that property. But before then there was a clause that they couldn't develop it because it was going through an easement not a rightway. Now that I'm not sure that would be something I would like to ask

actually would probably be a better Okay then if receiver of that question. I can I maybe should ask it early. I didn't catch it until I caught John. I'm not aware of any ordinances that we have that would restrict the amount of through an easement. Um the only thing I can think of with prior I think the prior ones that you might be talking about might be before I got here, but for subdividing land, you have to have road frontage on a public or private rideway. So, a subdivision wouldn't allow an ement to go through to access it. That that's the only scenario I can think of. That looks mighty.

Typically, Jeff, the as long as the ement is wide enough to accommodate the the minimum size roadway section which the roadway is already down. I wouldn't see that that is I'm not I'm not aware of everything either. Go ahead. I don't know. Sometimes there's gentleman agreements and deedities and that you know. Yeah. Okay. And the next question is usually when we change a town ordinance we have to go back for a text amendment to change it. We just can't do it on a whim second here tonight.

That's right. And it seems like to me that I've heard some things here that Dylan has brought up that our code says that they have to these other we have a code that had that septic systems a big We level all the trees on the property in order to put it in. We try to fit in little I think that it's my in my opinion. John Council approve concerning the septic. So in Rob's report he's got RV park shall provide at least one sewage dumping station approved by the the health department. He then notes that septic systems have been approved throughout the park instead of a sewage dumping station. Now, he notes that it's effectively the same, but what's the difference in a sewage dumping system, which is required by this code, and a septic system?

We wouldn't necessarily have to put any septic systems on the site at all. I mean, most of the trailers have holding tanks. When they come in, they dump them. When they leave, they dump them. What we have found and what the state has found is a lot of times those dumbing stations are more toxic if you will than the individual stations because people are you know people are holding up holding up holding up and they're dumping it. We have 18 effectively we have 18 dumping stations for the people that are going to be using the RV bar. Um and then we have a drain field for the for the bath house which conventional LP system

and a typical sewage dive. I've been to a few RV parks, not too many. I've taken road trips to football games with my friends. We don't really know what we're doing, but we've hooked up when we got to the RV park. As far as the dumping station, I think, is concerned. Would that just be a spot where you would a single location where many RVs would pull up, dump their sewage, and then any RV

or or any RV? Is that the difference between what you're saying are these individual septic systems versus a prototypical sewage dumping station? People that come to this RV park will be able to hook up their RVs and we're looking at RVs that are sort of bigger RVs, if you will. They won't need to have holding tanks. They won't need to have the chemical treatment that you have to put in the holding tanks to keep them smelling good and things like that to keep them sanitary. Um, we won't have that potential for additional pollution into the into the ground water. Um, having a pump I mean we could eliminate all of those septic systems and have one pump station in there and huge field. That's really not the right way to do this.

That's what I was getting at. That would be this one system would be the sewage dumping station. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's what I was trying to figure out the difference in the two. So So in this case, the septic provides a better long-term rental. They'll have to every few days get up and move their RV to dump and then come back. And

I've been to a few RV parks, too. more of a buffer and you have a smaller flow going into multiple areas rather than a larger flow. I mean, if we had to put a central system on there and put a wastewater treatment plant on there, we would be loading this at at not one gallon per minute, but we would be loading it at three or four gallons per per square foot or whatever. Um because because typically when you treat it higher, you don't have to put as big a drain to it. So I mean I think that with the health department and my conversation early on, they preferred the individual systems. They asked if we would go to 240 gallons per site rather than 120 gallons. Uh which we agreed to do. and uh and with two two RVs on each system. If a system does have a problem, it doesn't put the whole park out of operation. If it does have a problem, it's easy to fix because it's a gravity system. Ray Casper can come in and fix it in half, which is good. The only con is the the daily flow adjustments and making sure that as Mr. Tilllet said, some spots aren't overused other than others. some would stay empty when nobody comes and but um but like you said the tanks are larger so that's that's helpful there. I'm not trying to be hung up on this. I might 99 out of 100 people may not care. Um any reason why y'all didn't attach a copy of the um site evaluations from the health department? We can't we can provide Mr.

I mean I was on that for tonight. Nobody asked for uh Mr. Moy actually did send that to me previously. Um because Der County Health is the approving authority on that. I didn't think it was necessary to include in our package. Everything looking okay to you? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

Mr. Deluchia, I have another question. the U part Rob mentioned u an option for the park operator to periodically submit park registered to the town and that would state numerous things uh more or less uh keeping track of length of stays and things like that. Uh, is there a park manager office that you anticipated? Is there an employee for this development or where who is that person? Right now, there's not because we don't have a bath house on the other on the first phase of what's there now. Mhm.

I mean, with the bath house, we're going to have to have somebody there daily to check on things. I'll let Mr. Cass address that when he comes up and talk. Okay. More to follow on that. Casey, I have a a question again. Yes, sir.

Um, and it it's the same question. I'm just going to leave the the septic out now. I'll go to the culde-sac. That's a town ordinance. And once again, that's not a culde-sac. Does can we change at a whim or do you have to change the ordinance? Do we have to go back and go before the planning board and change do a text amendment to change the ordinance? It's it's it's not that I agree or disagree with any. It's just in my time here, if something was not if we were going against something that was in our ordinance, they went back and changed the ordinance through a text amendment so that it accommodated the ordinance. So I mean I tend to agree

and you know that that's just the way I have you know people have come for certain things and they've gone back and did a text amendment and you know I'm just wondering why text amendments weren't done before the change knowing that our ordinance required it. So, I've got turnaround is what I'm reading here, at least in Rob's report. If you want to elaborate because you you wrote this, you did note that rather than the 80ft diameter rightway turnaround, there's a T-shaped terminus. So, is it that a culdesac is required or what's the what's the differentiation you were making there, Rob? So the the language in the ordinance says culde-sacs or deadend roads shall not exceed 1,000 feet in length measured from the entrance to the center of the turnaround. Any road designed to be permanently closed shall have a turnaround at the uh closed end with a minimum rightway diameter of 80 ft.

Right. And then so what's the when you stated rather than a 80 foot diameter rightaway turnaround? Well, do do you see any deviation, if you will, based on this site plan from what our ordinance requires? I guess that's my question. Um, I guess the way that it reads, I mean, an 80 foot diameter turn if it's over. Yeah. Any road designed to be permanently closed, no road shall exceed, any road designed to be permanently closed have turned end. Um, so I think at that I mean it it reads to me the 80 foot diameter holes turn around. I guess it's up to council intent.

So then is it you're just telling me that they do not meet however the 80 foot diameter rightway turnaround requirement. Um, well, and I won't even say requirement because I I don't want to influence. I'm just But the language within the ordinance says 80 foot right away. Uh, turnaround. Uh, is that met based on this site plan? It's not it's not a road, it's a driveway. Um the I mean the way it reads to me that would not be 80 foot diameter.

I mean theoretically we could make an 80 foot diameter by going down into that area to the to the east of the road there. There's enough room there to put one, but I just don't see any reason why to do that. But we have to go by the ordinance, John. It's not a matter if we see a need. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but our ordinance don't. And in order for me to make a decision, the ordinances have to be changed. I have to go by the rules here. I can't just because somebody says they think it's a better idea. We have ordinances that we have to go by right now and procedures to change them if they're not, you know.

Okay, we'll put an 80 foot radius diameter radius up there. Bring it back to you. You're going to have to give up two spots. You're going to have to give up spots. Uh maybe, maybe not. Maybe not. I think this area I think this area that we talked about maybe right here, if I took this roadway and and looped it around here, I think I could get probably 80 ft in there. And I think I probably could get but we're going to be adding more pavement to it. If if that's what we want to do, make it a condition that we put an 80 foot radius there and we'll come ahead with it. We lose a spot, we lose a spot.

Or is it easier to go for a text amendment? You see what I'm saying? I'm not picking the way you go. I'm just saying I'm left with a decision here that leaves me in a predicament that I I have to prove something that is is not in our code. And that's that's difficult for me to do whether I like it or not. Well, and I need to add to that because then we're setting the tone for something else down the road if we don't follow the ordinance. Right. I've just never changed an ordinance without going through a text amendment. That's all. Well, let me put a culde-sac on the end of that road there and then be done with it.

And then there we would have to go to the definition of the septic to see if that's also you consider the sept the separate ones. I think the separate community and that would I'm not sure who would decide that. Um maybe we would have to have an engineer for the town decide that. Um, it it's just the ordinances that that I'm having a problem with. They seem to be not complying. That's all I have.

I I have a question for Casey. Um, in light of what he just said, I mean, if he says he can add something to it, I mean, that's I mean, we still are. We're not really following procedure of a text amendment though, right? or just are we allowed to say that's okay and or not?

So that's a good question. Um the so first and foremost I will note to to Councilman Puit's uh comments here that one of the requirements obviously is that all of the specifications and conditions of our ordinance be met. If there weren't shs in front of all of these particular items, whether they're better or a better way to do it, a more modern way to do it, I wouldn't have as much heartburn. Not because of this particular project. Every special use permit is sight specific. We're not setting a precedent. That's as to what could or could not be approved as far as RV parks in the future. But my heartburn is that if we start ignoring shallows in special use permit or quaison judicial hearings, what precedent does just ignoring the shall create? That's my problem. Not not what the shall not what follow shall. What precedence are we creating by ignoring the shall? So that that's that that is my issue with now can you guys make as a condition Rob if you don't mind real quick this is more for you if this council were to make as a condition just for example this turnaround issue the 80 foot diameter turnaround and they make a condition that that be shown on the because it still has to be a commercial site Is that correct?

Correct. And you have to approve that and then does that come back to council? A larger change like that would probably be rather than a conditional approval, I would say probably table until they can show that and then decision after. And that's why I wanted you that that that's why I wanted you up here. So that that answers um Commissioner H I'm sorry, Councilman Hines's question, which is instead of just saying here it's approved with this condition, you're saying you as the town planner would prefer a tableabling mechanism and then have it shown on a plan,

right? Have the the conditions of approval and then bring it back to verify that those conditions are being met. So, okay. So, kind of a hybrid, if you will. Like, in other words, here's what we want to see. We're not going to make a formal decision on approval tonight, but if you bring these meet these conditions, bring us a plan back. Well, so, so tableabling with conditions. Got it. Okay. Does that answer your question, David? Uh, yes, sir, it does. Counc in in a judicial hearing, are you allowed to introduce new evidence? What do you So if you were to make adjustments and bring it back, is that considered new evidence?

That that Well, but it would be fine because you guys make the decision to obey the hearing ab. Well, and I don't want to look like I'm Right. Right. Yeah. I don't look like I'm forward against anything, but I'm following what Councilman Tilllet's concerns are. Councilman Puit's concerns are mine have been answered. So, for the most part, um,

and like I said, it it my just to Councilman Puit's initial points here, my my biggest issue is the SH and ignoring that and just saying approve as is. If we've had our planner say, "Well, it actually doesn't meet what the ordinance." If it were to be tabled tonight, would they have to go back through the planning board or can they just come right back?

No, it could it could come back. So, law changed on that. So, special use permits, planning board actually, you don't even have to have planning board review of it, right? Okay. Yeah, we do. But the the bottom line is the recommendations that are made by the planning board, they actually can't be considered by you guys as a rationale for approval or denial. So to answer that's a long way of saying no. I just didn't doesn't have to go back. I just didn't know if it kicked it back another 30 days plus another, you know, 60 days kick back. You know, essentially kicks it back

till I that's the way you guys go. I would say it kicks it back until the conditions can be met or shown. Have to address Commissioner P's concern about septic and I mean it's a community system. I mean there's

and that might not be our but we're just hitting on the site plan. We haven't got we haven't got into the debate where we where we think if we're dealing with environmental or or the land use plan. I'm I'm right now just concerned about your initial site plan. I'd hate for you all to table this and then come back and do all these little changes to the ordinance and still by some reason that you know you feel confident that everything's kosher and then come in just because we said the culde-sac don't meet there might be other factors that other council members consider in the land use plan. They might not think that the even though the um county or whoever is giving you the permits for each septic tank, there might be somebody on here that didn't like that that thinks they'd rather have the bigger system. So they even though you know you might can adjust everything. Uh I'm not sure you know that tableling is the right method. That's just me. I think that

and just to make sure. So, Councilman Puit, are you saying that if this were tabled, if conditions that meet all the sh within the ordinance were placed on this, if when it came back, council decided that okay, well, actually, we don't like we don't believe that the intent and spirit of the ordinance is met by having this single dumping station and that may be a reason for denial. Is that what Well, even though you you and I'll say why it's why I asked that because if it meets the ordinance, we can't say it goes against the spirit and intent of the land use plan. Do

In other words, that goes back to your

That's where changing our ordinance if we don't like some of the items that are in it. If we feel as though our ordinance is outside or maybe antiquated or archaic in some way, not in compliance with our current land use plan, then that's either on us or or a citizen if you will to to make that proposition. But if we I will all I'm saying here is if we do if you guys do table place conditions they come back and meet the conditions. We can't say that them meeting these conditions just because it's not the best way to do it and we can't say it doesn't meet our land use plan. I guess and I could have totally misread you. I just wanted to make sure that we everyone's understanding. So let me let let me understand if one if say if a council member here finds that the land use plan uh u we find that it's not in pro preservation of the maritime forest flood plane marshes wetland through development regulations and land protection in this if one of us was to try to hold their hat on that is that legal or illegal

so you're more going to there maybe the location the specific location is that well any of any of the things in here. Even though we asked to meet it on the site plan, can any of these items that on the land use plan, you know, once again, uh, Council Drew, if I jump in for a second? Yeah. The, uh, I think you're referring to the the standards that council has defined for the special use permit. So, we're still in the the evidentiary hearing. We've only talked about the site plan part. We're still going to hear about the uh adjacent property values.

Oh, yeah. I was certainly going to say let's move forward with the hearing. I just wanted you wanted to table it. That would be assuming the council finds everything else is okay. So, we're still in the middle of that, right? Okay. Okay. And what would you prefer? Oh, I I just I just I'm just trying to clear clear it up. Clear up the uh it's not if what I prefer it it would be what the ordinance what they prefer. Well, if not if we could put an a culde-sac there then then that that you would meet you would meet the ordinance. But the community septic systems

I mean I contend that they're all owned by the same entity. So it is a community septic system. It gets away from the dumping station. I could not find any language that identified what a community septic system is specifically. So unless an engineer or somebody weighed in, I would be happy to say that 18 different um septics go towards a community septic system. I'm not saying that that's the best though, but I'm saying that I would be happy to call that a community system. But without any kind of legal guidance and an engineer weighing in on, you know, I'm I'm just talking competent information, I guess. And and we don't, to my knowledge, have a definition, do we in our ordinance of community? I I couldn't find it anyway. Okay.

So, I I would tend to agree with with Councilman Mans's take on that particular issue. So, if they're owned by an individual though, do they need to be monitored every year like a They're not They're owned by the property. It's going to be septic. It's going to be Dair County Health permit. Somebody still come out once a year and check them because pressure systems there will be right but on the for the for the bath house it will be right but the individual ones are gravity systems just like regular house and there's not really check understood

I mean they should be checked every 5 years and pumped to get the grease out of them solids out just typically what we do here. Um, I have one other question. Where does the I I couldn't quite find it. Where does the twoft sea level line meet this property for the 50-year um with the the um um you know flood mitigation risk mitigation there the the 50oot line the Noah 50year twoft sea level rise line where does that meet

I don't know does that make sense Rob what I'm talking about I know what you're talking about, but it's typically not something we show on these plans, nor is it required by the town to show that. So, I mean, right now there's a grading plan that I don't have in front of me. Okay. Um, and that would show what the elevation. So, we don't know where it is. No. Okay. But I mean, but we are raising the road elevation and the pattern elevations up to about a 5ft elevation. 5 foot. 5 foot. Yes.

Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse that was a little confusing question. Anything else for council as of this witness? Mr. Horn, I'll turn it over to you if you have any questions for our next witness.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure you did. Perfect. This is Greg Ward. He's our talk about the important findings that are required ordinance for the SC. Thanks, sir.

Just for the case. Thank you. Good news. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, sir.

Hi. Um, my name is Greg Bourne. I live 4893 the Woods Road in Kittyhawk. Um I'm a professional appraiser. Um I've appraised on the Outer Banks for 40 years. Um I do all kinds of property appraisals, usually the more uh complex assignments. Um I'm a general real estate appraiser, which gives me the qualifications to appraise any kind of property. Um I'm also an MAI, which means I'm a member of the appraisals institute, which is kind of like a step above required to get um state certified. Um so I've been down here a long time. Um but in this particular case, what we're trying to find is if this proposed use of the preserve at the woods will have an adverse or substantial injure the value of the adjacent properties. So what I have done is done a study to answer that question and basically I will go ahead and tell you my findings and then I'll tell you how I arrived at them. Um I found that the project will not substantially enter the value of joy property or be a public nuisance given the development plans within the area. The proposed project will be in harmony within the area that is located and does not materially endanger the public health and store safety. So before I go into the how I have set a conclusion, I'll give you a real quick overview of the property that is going to be that's the subject of what we're here today.

Okay. Basically, real quick, it's 6.21 acre track, about 5.27 acres of that's upland. You got about an acre acre of wetlands, which is mostly the ash pond, ashwamp pond. Um, you're going to have 32 sites on there. Um, and the site ranges between two and a half, four feet above sea level. The soils on the site are both Um on the upland is p primarily fine sand and ole fine sand which are moderately well drained to excessively well drained soils. Um you have a little bit of a a wetland right along the pond but the vast majority of the site and where the development is is on the uplands. Um it'll be 32 sites. Each site will be most sites are 12 ft wide by 50 ft long. Although you have a couple that's 12 ft by 40 ft. bath house, utility hookups, two parking spaces, and we've gone into great detail about so that um the map I've given you kind of shows and it's basically an enlarged one from page 11 because when you put something in the report, you got to shrink it pretty far, pretty small so it so it fits. Um so basically what you have on the property the surrounding properties the adjacent properties to the east you have the existing park which also goes to the north um to the south and east further down you have basically

five or five parcels. Four of them are single family dwellings. One of them is a vacant lot and then across Ash um the pond to the west you have a house on a very large parcel. It's about 9.7 acres. So basically those are the properties. Most of those houses, especially the ones at the end of Old Schoolhouse Lane, are older properties on larger lots. Um, some of them are manufactured housing. You have some warehouses. In fact, the one across the ash um um ash uh

swamp pond is actually has about a 2,000 square foot warehouse on it. So, um you have a right away a wide array of uses around the property and across you know of course you have the storage king USA, you have the garden center, you have the Fred Smith complex. Um and then further out from that you have other single family residences and uh some vacant land that's part of the uh the preserve. So you know basically if you read the description I have on pages 10 and 11 that kind of goes along with what I have on the map. Um, real quick, uh, property is zoned BR3 highdensity residential village district. And basically to the north, east, and south has the same zoning across the pond to the west, you have a low density village residential district. Um, we've gone over what the zoning will allow. And uh so basically what I have to do to find out what a difference it makes if there makes any difference in the value by being adjacent to an RV park, I have to look at sales of properties that are adjacent to a park that are and compare them with things that are otherwise similar but not adjacent to the park. And to do that, I looked at basically the the three parks in Kittyhawk. Um the subject obviously the Kittyhawk RV park, Charlie's Family RV Park. Um I also looked at the Kittyhawk I mean and

Joe and Case Campground and L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L O L Obx campground in Cington and I looked at 13 RV parks on Hatter's Island where the vast majority of our RP RV parks are located. So what I have found is that I research numerous sales but in these things is kind of difficult because you got to find a sale next to an RV park which as we all know the Outer Banks is pretty developed. So you have to find sales that occurred within the relative same period of time. I went back as far as 2000 and are similar in this case like lots and size um you know the lo the location and how they would be you know how they compare to each other and what I found is basically I found three that I've included in my report and basically um let me see I have two on island and one of one next to Ocean Waves Campground and the other one on Paris was the Sansa Town Campground RV park in um Avon Village. Also, I found one next to Charlie's Family RV Park here in Kittyhawk. Basically, from looking at those three sales, I found no material difference or substantial difference in value between a property that's located adjacent to an RV park versus a similar property not located to a adjacent to an RV park. And that's why I derive my opinion that the preserve at Kittyhawks Woods project will not substantially hinder the value of adjoining property or be a public nuisance and the proposed project will be in harmony with the area in which it

is located and does not materally endanger the public health or safety. Okay, I'll start. Um, when you say in harmony. Yes. Explain the definition of what you're talking about. In harmony. What's in harmony? The proposed project is obviously in harmony similar to what surrounds it. Obviously, it's adjacent to a existing but not harmony with nature. You're talking about in harmony with surrounding uses

surrounding uses like um you know the the existing um portion of the Okay. But just buildings specifically your your definition of harmony doesn't mean it's fitting in with the the actual area that it's in. You're just saying it's got similar then buildings around it or it's when you look in harmony what you're looking at is what is the if you take go back and just look like you know from a a drone or something down at the side of the picture you just look around what's around it.

You have an existing park. You have single family dwellings. You have mobile home uh manufactured homes on lots. You have warehouses. You have to the north of the property, you actually have an abandoned. Yes, it was a manufactured home at one time. You got a camper. They got some vehicles. They're all overgrown. Um, this proposal and the expansion, in my opinion, is in harmony with those uses that surround it. The uses. Yes, sir.

Okay. But you're not saying in an environmental standard at all. You you have your expertise is just right now you're just saying that the it won't endanger the value of the property next door. Yes, sir. So the harmony I'm not really sure and it's highlighted. Uh it kind of in harmony they're all different. And I mean there's not a mobile park next to it. Like you said, I don't see what what harm it's it would be.

I agree. It's not going to hurt the value of the property. I agree 100%. But I I'm not sure. I'm kind of confused about the harmony issue of whether you're you're saying this whole project fits on this piece of property or or are you here to tell me that it's not going to hurt the value of I'm here to tell you it's not going to be hurt the value. Okay. And basically in that regard it's in harmony. It would not be a use that would not be anticipate into their surrounding properties. In that sense, it's in harmony. Okay.

Don't you think it's kind of difficult to compare something that's oceanfront to where this is located? Well, what you want to do is you want to look and, you know, in a perfect world, I'd have a sale right next to the park, right? And a thousand feet away, I'd have another sail. They'd be identical.

And then that way I can look at them and say, "Oh, the only difference is next to the park and what's not. Unfortunately, this is the Outer Banks and the vast majority of a property is already developed. So, if I'm looking for one aspect, right, and that is being next to an RV park is a detriment um or has is an adverse to the adjoining property or adjacent property. Um I can compare I can as long as I'm holding the factors the same. One's adjacent to RV park another is not but they're similar in every other way.

Then I can say okay I've isolated that one factor that says being adjacent does not harm that one. I'm going to jump in there on page four where you do your general assumptions and limiting conditions. Yes sir. 23 year licensed real estate broker yada yada yada I get your extraordinary assumptions and assumptions that you have to make. Right. Right. Right.

However, um I'm going back off number one, but on on number eight, you say it is assumed that all applicable zoning and use regulation restrictions have been complied with unless a nonconformity has been stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report. Wouldn't that kind of tie back into Councilman Puit's concerns on the road and everything else? Basically, are you assuming that all that's okay? I'm assuming the project will be developed just like it is production.

Okay. And um also under number nine u it is assumed that all the required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimate value estimate contained in this report is based. We don't have all those. So again, you're making another extraordinary assumption. Assumption, right? And and this is, you know, these are standard living conditions. Correct. Um this is not an appraisal like I'm appraising one piece of property. Um and I'm batting it.

Yeah. But you're I'm using appraisal methods to answer a question. And so basically my assumption it's developed just like it is shown up there. Right. And you're here with flow and harmony and it's not I understand. Exactly. So, um, based on that comment, I'm going to back off number 11. Um, where there was no survey was made for you for the appraisal because if you're putting a value to something, not that you have to have an a survey to to to give value, but you can't just rely on tax records either, right? I mean, you know, obviously we have something that's here that's

correct. But but you're stating right here under number 11, page four, that no survey was made especially for this appraisal, right? Um that's your statement. That is basically whenever I appraise a property, the vast majority of times it does not have a survey made specifically. Okay, here Greg, here's a brand new survey. Now go appraise a property. Typically, I'm lucky to get a survey. It may be five years old. It may be 10 years old. Understood. You know, and sometimes I don't even get that. Sometimes I do have to rely on count. And I get it. They're not even required by a bank half the time. I get it. Depending on what type of loan you're doing. Yes, sir.

Um I I'm just wanted to point out for the record though that, you know, we're we're making these assumptions, but there's eight and nine. We go back to Councilman Kuit's concerns. And I'm backing off 11, but I did want to just state that you didn't have an actual survey to go by. Not one made specifically for me, but I did have that site map. Okay. But that's kind of contradictory to what you said at number 11. It's basically standard conditions that I include with every other questions.

Um I think I just have one. It's it's a little bit of a question but kind of a point to along with um Councilman Puit's um questioning of harmony. It looks like you indicate in there that um the comprehensive plan it's uh it's in general conformity with the comprehensive plan and does not material endanger the public health or safety. I think it's Yes, sir. Is that I mean are are you doing that off an appraisal? You know, I'm trying to figure out I mean I can hear the engineer say that but extraordinary assumptions. Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's that that's part of you know the plan I'm going with the plan they have here. I'm looking at value. So you know okay

basically given this plan what I've done research valuewise I see no um detriment to adjoining properties. I'm sorry. Did you repeat that last statement? Yes. I'm sorry. Okay. do the specific thing about based on on I didn't hear the whole thing. I'm sorry. Basically, from my analysis, I found that the project will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property or be a public nuisance. Okay.

I thought I heard I thought I heard you put some the word value to something in if I did have spoken. Okay, fair enough. So, I just bring that out there since this is an official record. Yes, the claim that of health and safety I think kind of exceeds the scope here a little bit which goes back to, you know, I guess assumption number 18 on page five. Um, the subject has never been utilized as a waste disposal site for toxin or other hazardous material. I'm I'm not an expert environmental guy in the bore. It's not mine. So I'd say you know that's okay. Thank you. I think

so. And as a general comment that goes to the remember I said earlier substantial material and competent and you guys decide what is competent. Is he competent to testify as to the issues you're currently speaking about? And that's in y'all's perview. And in your own words right then you did you not say that you you are not uh qualified to say harmony environmentally or anything like that? I can in regard to in harmony as far as value goes just with value just with not not in harmony with the area. you're just the value something was not in harmony with the area

it it could impact value but and from my research right you know and using the the the words the language right um it is in harmony with value it will not have an adverse or detrimental value impact on the surrounding or Jason property

just so that you know why I'm asking it is because in the fine findings it we have to find that it will be in harmony with the area and you use the word harmony. So I want to make sure that you're not the spokesman for this group that is saying it's in harmony if is that correct with the with the nature it you're not environmentalist is that correct? No. So, as far as environmental impact and all that, you're not saying that this is in harmony with nature in any way. You're just saying that this is in harmony with similar structures of value. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is everybody satisfied with this testimony? Yes. Ask if the applicant had any questions. This gets to the harm issue.

With respect to the harmony issue, I know Mr. Mr. Puit's been asking you about harmony. When you talked about harmony, did you consider like the other uses in the area, the trees, the environment? Yes. I mean, I considered how it sits where it sits and and what impact the has obviously it's one thing if the project went there and clearcut it clear cut the whole site which is not going to do what it's not going to do actually if you look at the plan they preserve most of the the live oaks and things like that so in that regard it is in harmony with its area and that harmony is a is a value indicator

is it harmonious with the existing RV park right next door yes it is Actually, it's a lower density, but yes, but it's harmonious. Yes, it is. And when you look at it, you talked about before like the drones view looking down, right? When you look at it in terms of what's surrounding it, vegetation, types of buildings, uh, other uses, not just uses, but the in the context of of the area around it, right? Is it still your opinion that it's harmonious with the area?

Yes. And my in fact, if you look at some of the the dwellings, if you go down old school lane, most of lots have been practically entirely cleared where there is no remaining vegetation to speak of. So in in that sense, you know, it's the project is better than some of the surrounding properties in that regard. And is it as harmonious as some of the other uses that that that could go in the BR3 district? Yes, it is. Thank you.

And I think last but not least necessarily with our presentation, we've got Chris Cashing, who's one of the uh principles of the entity that owns the property. So, he's going to talk to you about the project and some of the other issues we can talk about.

Good evening. My name is Chris Cashion. I'm one of the owners of the preserve park in Kittyhawk. I've owned it for about 10 years. I actually owned it after the last um I was not part of the request for the home park earlier. I guess that preceded my ownership. But I wanted to just tell you a little bit about what we've tried to do with the property and what we would like to do with this adjacent property. And when I bought it, um there were some issues locally with the with the reserve part. The previous owner had done some work to improve it and we've continued to do that. Um we really focused on using strong lease agreements, some standardized processes, some some legal um background checks, etc. to improve the tenency in the park and to make sure that we're complying with everything that Kitty hog units and I have checked in periodically over the years with the police department with the fire department to say that we're we're running a a good park. We haven't created any issues um locally with the police. Uh we've been in compliance with everything that we've been asked to do and we maintain a very standardized schedule of maintenance and not let and trying to maintain a standard of RV that's in the park and trying to make sure that we're doing the best thing that we can for the area. So why are we thinking about expanding it? We we've always owned the property next door. Um, and it was it's a separate parcel and the goal was we'd like to see if we could continue to expand upon the things that we've learned over the 10 years of running the park that we currently have. And so I get it, not everybody loves RV parks, but we really think that I think it's an awesome use for here in the Outer Banks

if we do it right. And I wanted to make sure when we did this proposal that we did it right. And so I hope if I've demonstrated to you. We spent the time to hire local experts to look at what is the environmental impact. How can we minimize that? How can we put the correct septic in place? How can we make sure there's minimized environmental impact? Create a park that looks great that has some maintenance trees, has nice spacing between the between the spots and create a really welcoming environment that we think we have. now, but I think this steps it up even better on the second half of the the park. I think that um we've really been intentional with how can we design something that would look good and work with some of the limitations you have in terms of how lowlying the area is and what can we do and what would what else could we put there? Um, as far as some other things I've heard that that come up, I mean, obviously RV parks were a text amendment were a text amendment that was made I believe a few years ago we were in VR3, but RV parks actually weren't um weren't allowed in in VR3, but they that was changed a few years ago. You know, reserve right now is is a is a grandfather use. So, we look to be compliant with all the standards that the RV park ordinance requires. That's what we were very intentional making sure John went through and did all the septic requirements and the turnaround requirements and and we just tried to do a little bit above and beyond in terms of making it look like it would be a very attractive spot for people to come. And with that, I'd love to welcome your questions about what our intent is. I know there's some questions about tenency and who's going to come. Um more

than happy to tell you how we plan on managing that. Do you have a manager? We do. You do? His name is Nick Martini. He's managed the park for both the previous owner and myself. Does he stay in a camper? He is. He's request. Do you have a storm planned for your um We do. When there is a storm coming, we do put out We can't make people leave. We we we request they leave.

So if that camper if the if the RV is there and hurricane's coming and they're in Mississippi and you call and say, "Hey, you need to move your camper out of here, your RV out, and they say, "Man, I can't make Haven't had that experience." But how about I look at the worst? All I can speak to is what I look at the worst. Everybody knows me. I look at disaster. I know this of the tenants that aren't there. Um the the ones that I know of are ones that live within an hour of the spot and they do come and move.

But you don't have a limit on where they Okay. Say 10 of them are from here. What would you do if we had a hurricane coming? What would your What would your plan do to get these vehicles out of this lowlying area before they end up in Ash swamp? Is there nothing you can do? They're private and you can't ask them to leave or have a tow truck. We do ask them to leave. Well, how about if they don't? I suppose if that's something that would be a requirement. Is that a requirement within the ordinance that we do? And if they don't, they can be towed.

That's certainly something that could be part A lot of the questions I think you guys ask could be managed through a lease agreement. And that lease agreement could include that provision that if you you're required to remove or the park will have it removed for you uh in in the case of storm evacuation.

Well, I have concerns and this h this room's full of people with concerns about what's going to happen if it floods. I think most of the people here are worried more about where is the wastewater going, where are these vehicles, who's going to make sure that they're not left there. The reason that that when we did the RV park, one of the reasons that they didn't really want to do it is because we were going to make have to be above the flood level where this isn't. So that way if they didn't come, their RVs, I mean, their campers were going to be where they they weren't flooded. where this we have. I don't see how especially if you only allow these people shortterm like if I go to a campground and I pay by the night,

right? Just like I do when I go camping. I love camping and uh I have nothing against RV parks and but most of the ones I've been to, you go, you go there, they don't have a lot of them don't have septic. you hold it and then as you're leaving you go to the dump spot and go. That way you don't stay because you have to keep going back and forth. This seems like we you're going to hook up, you're going to stay and you know a monthly rental can turn into yearly and yearly and yearly and and what you just said is you really have no way of making them leave if they don't want to go.

Well, and that jumps back into what I was saying earlier. So if it's 180 days, right, you can pull out for one day and go back in and your 180 days starts,

right? So, and then you and you say you can't make somebody leave. Um, I may be off here, but if if you're not if you had a full-time resident and you're told mandatory evacuation, you can make them leave. So, um, I have concerns about that. My concern is you pull out for one day and you're right back for another 180 days. But to your point on the flooding and and the hurricanes, if you know, if you're in Mississippi, I mean, it's not a tornado. It doesn't just show up overnight. You've got time to get here and get your stuff out of here. Right. So,

I mean, I can only speak to the experience I've had managing the department is that we do send out evacuation messages. We not It is not current policy to make them leave. Um, we haven't done that. If you're saying that's a con condition of now managing RV parks, I don't believe that's I don't I don't know if it's a condition. It's a concern. Yeah. I don't know if I have the legal ability to do that as the lease is written, but I think you can put whatever you want in your own lease, right? And that certainly could be something that would be and and again for me it's more of a safety concern, not a a condition much.

Yeah. I'm not against RV parks. I I sit on the county planning board for since 2015. We've approved plenty of them. Right. I I'm not opposed to it. I just This is different than anyone I've ever seen before. Can I ask you in what way? Everything we've discussed tonight. Um I'm more concerned about the safety side of it. Environmental. Environmental. And what because that water does lead to open water. might have to go through a covert underneath a street, but it does get there. And that that goes to Kittyhawk Bay, right?

No question. And what what body would satisfy you? I'm sorry. And whose opinion would satisfy you? Well, it's not just my opinion. It's this whole board, everybody. I'm just if the if the storm water and whatnot are approved by Deer County, I'm just asking what body catastrophic events

when we get we have the septic exploding down to look at Hatteris right now that's all approved so I mean I'm not trying to to make it difficult on you I'm just trying to throw like I'm like council prud I'm throwing things out there that we have to think about as a council for the safety and wellbeing of all the residents around So that's all I have for now. Anybody else? Dylan, you got any

just elaborate on that park manager position one more time? Uh, so that's great. You have a person that lives in the park right now that manages and that that works out wonderful. If that person left and no other person living in the park wanted to be that manager, what would you do? He does not live in the park. I misunders Okay. He comes to the park. So, in the event that you lost that employee, you would find another local person. Yes, sir. Okay. You don't have any My point is you don't have any plans to have an office or a somewhere where he would have headquarters at who's how how people going to get in and out of these talking about motor homes or talking about motor homes or

my experience of what how people currently is that they would like They only have, but I think that's how we would approach it.

This has little to do with your subdivision, but I have concerns about Woods Road traffic. I've been caught in that wood road traffic on weekends and you cannot get out of it until you get to the end. I um I don't know how you were going to evacuate or or I just it just I I don't know how you're going to manage that without somebody on site when you've got somebody checking in and checking out and everybody doesn't drive them well. So, um and and are they back in or drive in? sites.

They're they're back in sights and that's why that's why we created the the wider birth so that they could do that. And these will be for the owners only an immediate family. They won't be able to leave them and a cousin come state all have any of those kind of regulations in our current lease areas. You have you can't sublet it. Not sublet, but I'm I understand that. But I know that the the the parks here, I can't even let my nephew come if it's not me and my children. No, I think I I do believe the lease agreement is super important, but that's Yes. It's not meant for

because if I leave it for a period of time, I can go back home and I can tell my cousin, why don't you go stay for a couple weeks and then or my nephews and but I know locally here that I was thinking about putting an RV in a park cuz I like parks. And so I checked around and I thought it'd be great if I had some family, they could go over there and stay. And I found out that's not the way it works here. It's for me and me only. I just was wondering if if this was very similar where, you know, nobody else can stay in there but the immediate family. I

Well, and it's not a gated community either. Um, you know, to prevent folks from coming and going as they want. Um, with that lease that you have now currently, how long are people allowed? What's the maximum length amount of time somebody can currently sign with you? At this point they can they can roll to month for as long as they have as long as they So you just there is there isn't there isn't a maximum. Okay. Okay. So that would be a change and this is currently in a the current park is also in the same flood zone as 100%. Okay. So everything in there is able to be pulled away and got a 180day requirement. I mean,

in the 10 years I've voted, we've not had a flood problem. I mean, we've had some. Well, I'm just saying like right now, do you track since it isn't a flood zone and there's a 180day requirement or a one-year requirement to have it camper registered? Camper running registration of who's in the lots. Yes. Okay. So, you you keep up with that and you maintain the 180 days and currently. Okay.

We have and we have information on the vehicle. We have security deposits. We have Going back to Mayor Walker's concern about traffic on the Woods Road, have you been in coordination with any sort of traffic engineer regarding additional ingress and egress next to the entrance is so close to an existing intersection. I know on new curb cuts on for new projects, you would want a certain separation between an intersection um that's sort of I could see creating a danger.

I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not a traffic engineer, but 32 units, 32 RV units are going to have one vehicle, maybe two vehicles on them. And and I say one vehicle because usually the RV towes the toes the electric vehicle um they use to get around here. Um Miss Walker. Yes, I know that Saturday afternoon or Saturday mornings people try to sneak up that road back. I don't know what we can do with that. I don't know either.

I if we could find the solution to that it would be wonderful. It would be. I mean, the solution to that is to get up at 7:00 to go up to Walmart and not hit got get caught in the 11. Um,

but but that's just an inconvenience. And I think what Councilman Tid's saying is you've got two inter you got a T intersection right there and you've got an angle road right now. You've got folks that are staying there long term. I mean, they're not coming and going, but you come out that that, you know, just driving out of there. And I run through there all the time. When you come out of that lot, you're looking right back down. you're coming at an angle and you look back right down the swamp. You got a rig behind you, you're pulling out in front of a 35 zone or you know somebody going sometimes for I guess some people go 50 down there but um not you I'm not saying but it that could be a tight spot right when you're coming out with a rig and so you got to be real careful. It could be a concern now you have a lot more activity 30 more spots and uh 32 more spots and so forth and so on. So so I I get what Councilman Tillet's getting at there. I mean, typically you a typical operation on from where the RV park is not going to be driving from because they're not all coming and going at the same time. It's not

until that hurricane until that hurricane hits and now you've got 30 some plus the original 30 vehicles trying to egress all at one time. Thousands of vehicles that we have trying to get one way in, one way out. And it's it's a safety issue, you know. Um, no no no parking lot around a commercial would allow you to go one way in, one way out to Walmart or anything like that. You got to have ingress egress for safety. So yeah, but but the traffic concept of something like the and we did traffic studies when we did BB&T where the new um right rural farms is going to go. Um we had that all looked at and on a shopping center like that your traffic count is higher. Yeah. Much higher.

Mixed dreams here. That's a whole different animal. That's a whole different commercial spot and all that, but but you do have a lot of people if we develop if we develop this parcel in compliance with the permitted uses and put 24 25 3bedroom apartments on here, the traffic would be much much higher the 32

possibly, but not big rigs behind them and that sort of thing. So again, concern being an emergency, storm hitting whatever, you're trying to egress all everybody at one time and it could be, you know, problematic is everybody's trying to back out and as Mayor Walker said, you know, having somebody direct and that sort of thing. You know, it goes back to the owner making sure there's a traffic cop out there directing traffic because that could become a real big mess. Um, and then people could get trapped back there. Not to mention a fire hazard. Not that we're too worried about that, but I mean I think that's probably more than

No, I agree. I think a manager that's why a manager I do believe is is important since we're talking about the intersection we're there. I'm kind of we're going to go back to the bomb property. Exactly. How wide is the easement? Is is somebody I would have to look back. I know I know we do have a very tight easement agreement that was that dates back to when we purchased the original park and I you know I it just seems like to me we we'd like to know I I would like to know if she was to pinch and just hold you to your exact easement there exactly what your easement is anybody well not

I'd love to contact Mrs. about it, but I have not been successful. Now, did the did the appraiser not pull an easement? Did you not go back to them assumptions, right? Assuming they're all there.

Anybody else have questions? One last question. Do you have a recreational facility right now at your current property? Do you have a place that people are already? We just have extra space. There's there's extra space where some of the dumpsters are and it's is that at the end of that one road you come in back on the water that kind of green area.

Ask one question. Certainly. over the course of your 10 years of association over the course of your 10 years of association with the preserve as it is now. How many accidents or incidents have you experienced at the intersection of the driveway with Woods Road? I know, but I can't guarantee that nothing happened. So, I don't I don't I'm not familiar with any your current long-term residents are there. No further questions. I'm good. A few. Y'all good? Good. Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you. Now, I want to make sure that everybody has had an opportunity to ask questions and to um come forward. Yes. Question. You're a quick study. We'll have an opportunity to kind of sum up after the public or whoever else. Okay. After everyone's done, I'll have a few comments. This is their hearing. So, I I want to hear from them, too.

Okay. State your name and address and speak directly into the microphone. Well, I will state my name and my address and she she was. Yeah, yeah, she was sworn in. She was. But apparently, um I'm Andrea Wendell. I live at 10:22 West Kitty Road. Um happy new year.

I appreciate the time. Um, I come to a lot of public meetings here at the council and spoke, but I am by no means a expert, which I just probably shot myself in the foot not signing up for public comment, but I guess that didn't matter either because that was such an eloquent letter that was

read into the um into the meeting. The only expertise I have is that I live in the village and I live not adjacent but pretty dag on close to where this is going. Um, and you guys have done great tonight with all these valid concerns that people that live in the village have um on this expansive project. Um and traffic is a huge concern. Charlotte, thank you for bringing that to the attention of um being locked in on a Saturday.

It only takes once, you don't forget it.

Um um so yes, that is a huge concern and although in the 10 years that you have owned that, I don't believe there are a lot of large recreational vehicles in out of that driveway that dumped right into an intersection onto the continuation of the walking path. Um so that is a huge concern. Um also something else that we have thought about with people staying here long term and um I know there's two parking spots per um lot but I know being a frequenter of RV parks and camping, that's going to really increase the ebike traffic as well because I know a lot of people if they're parked, they're going to ebike and that's already a concern. Um, and there's been a lot of issues and accidents with that and um so in a shared community and maybe you know people not exactly sure where they're going that can be another huge concern. But once again, not being an expert, but knowing what the land use plan is for Kittyhawk, in my humble opinion and not expertise, I believe that it doesn't fit in. It's it's not conducive to the village. And maybe some people might say that it's a case of not backyard, but that person probably has the luxury of not worrying about this going in their backyard. Um

so with that being said, I also know that in the past um there have been applications for special use permits and it has been said from council that the town of Kittyhawk has taken a lot of time and money to create a wonderful land use plan. So, it's hard to see things get um change when there is a clear vision for the town of Kittyhawk and how the residents want the land used. Maybe, you know, if an RV park is there, maybe it's not so dense, maybe it looks different, but the way it is going to impact the community of the village. And before 10 years ago, there was a huge storm. It was uh 14 years ago. My daughter was just born and we left and it was a scary, horrible storm, which we've been very lucky that we haven't had anyone like that, but chances are we probably will. So, um, all those flooding issues that council are bringing up are very valid concerns. Um, and also I would just like to say as a resident of the village that Nobody has chosen to make their life here because they wanted this in their backyard.

Thank you. Anybody else? Casey can he had he'd have to be sworn in issue he'd like more information. Oh, he wants to be heard about. Yes. I just want to ask. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I understand. Needs to be sworn in. Please be Yep. Yep. Say please.

Sworn in. more clarification. My name is Curtis Pentecost. I live at 1047 Twford Street. Uh, I heard uh Councilman Hines briefly mention uh a fire and I haven't heard anybody mention anything about fire control, fire hydrants or outdoor fires like uh grills and things like that.

Uh I woke up one night and the house behind Ronnie Tilllet's house was on fire. That was a scary situation. I was really concerned that whole forest was going to go up and I never had a problem with the trailer corp. Never even noticed that they were over there. But with that many packed in, I had been at Frisco campground on holidays and there's fires, there's drinking, there's yelling and screaming. Like I said, I had never heard anything. Didn't even know the trailer park was over there really. But I am concerned about fire and whether there are fire hydrants and how they intend to deal with that issue. Thank you. Thank you. Let me answer that question real quick. Okay.

There's water system out on the site. There's an existing fire hydrant right in the middle of the whole site that is comp

Mr. Deluchia. Is that fire hydrant? Is there a certain distance it needs to be from every site? Is there a requirement that you've met when designing this? You mentioned it is you see what that See what um the water line comes across there. Mhm. It's right where it turns. I know where it's at. I'm just curious if there was a minimum distance from each site that that is being held. Is there a 400 foot or 500 foot distance from we submitted it to the town and the town said what we have out there was okay. Okay. If we needed to put another fire hydrant, we'd certainly be willing to do that. Gotcha. I'm sorry. Where's the fire hydrogen at again on there?

Oh, I see it. Yeah, it's right about right in there. That's the existing one. The existing ones on the property line. Am I not am I wrong? Right there. Yeah, right there. That's correct. Yes, sir. Yeah. Seems like there should be another h to me it seems like there should be another one somewhere. But I mean, if it's if the fire department's okay with it, then I'm not who am I? They would know better what they need to fight a fire than I do. Chief, are you able to speak on distances from hydrants that you'd like to have from a a firefighting standpoint? You just swear him in too.

Yep. Okay. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give in this action shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help me God. Good evening.

So what was the question? Is there a certain distance from a hydrant that you're looking for with our apparatus to make sure that if a fire was to happen at one of these sites, uh, it would be in within a correct distance to be able to, uh, attack the fire. So, we generally look for 400 ft. Mhm. We have the capabilities of going 1,000 ft with our trucks. That's a standard that's with all fire pumpers, most of the fire service and as well. We can go beyond that, but we typically do not want to go beyond,000 ft. In terms of what we look in the plans, we're looking around the 400 to 600 range.

So, you feel that's adequate for you guys the way it is now. This was approved by the fire marshall. So, yeah, he knows what I look for. So, we're in that 4 to 600 foot range. Yeah. So if one of these at any single site went was to go up in flames, you feel confident we'd have the correct equipment to address that in our apparatus? It's not really about the equipment. It's about the staffing and the manpower. So that it's going to be questionable any time of the day, day of the week. Sure. Wind. Yep. Gotcha.

A lot of variables there. So, as an example, you got a fire hypothetically on Lindberg and you guys trying to fight that and then one breaks out over here. Is that what you're referencing as far as manpower to be able to just

Well, there's there's something called an effective response force on any fire and generally we look at a single family residence and we have minimals. Okay. Right now in the region, we're below our minimums to begin with. So, it's just just in any fire. Just take this to the side. But we're we're behind in that regard. We have a lot of equipment, just not a lot of staffing. A lot of our staffing is based on mutual aid. I would say all of it is based on mutual aid. And we have in Kittyhawk, we have no control over what others are sending us and when they're sending them to us. So there's a lot of variables in that regard. Uh as far as Kittyhawk, if we have the staffing, we have the equipment to deal with this. It's just that we staff four people per shift. So if you're asking if Kittyhawk can handle that, I'm going say no, we cannot.

Would an extra hydrant make it easier? It's still going back to the staffing question. We got people staffing those fire trucks and responding. Now on a good day, we we do get that staffing in a relatively quick quick time. We can handle that. But if you're asking me at every every day, every moment of the day, can we handle that? There's a lot of variables there. I can't really answer that. That's fair. Chief, do you know if that's a dead end line to that hydron or if it's a spaghetti line or a loop line or do you know? It's most likely a dead end. A spaghetti dead end. Okay. So, more I don't know specifically.

Okay. So, adding more hydrants on a dead end like we've seen on ivy, it's not on a grid system. If it's not on the loop system, one hydrant sucks the flow. If we had 10 hydrants, it wouldn't make the difference of water flow to this site because of if if this is a dead end main or spaghetti line. It it it's it doesn't get on a loop on the woods road. Most likely not. Correct. Okay, John.

Okay. Thank you. So add so that so the question of more fire extinguishers we've seen this happen in Kittyhawk land and where you could had all the fire trucks you wanted uh but we didn't have an order couple of the trucks sucked it so the rest of them couldn't even run. So to answer that I I don't think hydrants would help in this situation. So, Chief, I brought this up a couple times, but just while you're here, um I know the fire marshall looked at this, but any concerns with single ingress egress point when you you've got a multiple casualty ambulances, fire trucks, any concerns or any kind of rapid evacuation. Um with this layout, the way it's, you know, single road in and out,

we would be concerned about those things if it was high occupancy. Okay, these are probably not going to be probably not going to be that that's not going to be the case. I guess it could be, but generally speaking, it's not going to be high and that's when we usually want that.

Yeah. so that we can get in and out of there, any emergency vehicles and so no we're not all we're able to get our trucks in and out of there um effectively uh with with the hammerhead and get in and out. We did look at that when these plans came came out and make sure that it was meeting that standard and it does. Out of curiosity, what is the procedure for turning around at a hammerhead intersection? Do do crew members jump out of the truck and guide the truck backwards? Yes. Okay. One leg, they get out, back up down the other leg. Uhhuh. Okay.

If I'm not mistaken, it was supposed to be 60 ft on each of the legs. I think that's what it said. And it did you or the applicant receive any sort of written report from the fire marshall when he did the review on that hydrant? Okay. Rob, you don't know of any. You haven't received any on that note. Okay. Rob, is there a flow rate for dwellings by, you know, like one hydrant at a certain flow rate can only service a certain amount of dwellings? Is there anything in the code like that? No. Okay.

That's all I have. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Great. Is there anybody else that needs to speak, would like to speak? Okay. Well, then I would entertain a motion. Mr. Mort wanted to uh just make a few closing remarks. Oh, okay. That's perfectly fine. I'm going to go.

Thank you. I promise to be brief. I'm sure you've heard attorney say that before and waiting, whatever. But in any event, um, you know, we had quite a discussion this evening. I know that there are some concerns that some of the council members had regarding the turnaround in particular. You know, we can accept the condition that there be a culde-sac instead of a turnaround. A design issue that John has already indicated can be addressed. There is an issue about what is a turnaround. Um, this is a turnaround. It's just not a culde-sac. The ordinance doesn't require a culdeac. So I just wanted to nevertheless we're willing to do a culde-sac if that's what the council is really

the uh I'm sorry you said the the culde-sac is not required per the ordinance. It says turn with 80 foot diameter. 80 foot diameter. Yeah, that's hard to do on a T. But the next one, there's no definition of turnaround in the ordinance. Well, the intent 80 ft would be so you could turn around, not have to back up to a safe. You're saying it's an ambiguity. Okay. Gives you gives you not a radius is not ambiguity. We have a radius of 80 ft. Let me let me try.

The ordinance says any road designed to be permanently closed should have a turnound that's closed in with a minimum right of weight diameter of 80 ft. We don't have a right way here. This is a drive. Um but we do have a turnound that has more than 80 ft in it. I mean, if you want us to do a circular one there, we certainly can do that. I can accommodate that. But we're still going to leave that that tea up there. It's still going to be part of the plan because it it still will provide a turnaround for the fire department to use. Fire department can't turn around with 80 foot. I mean, they've had to do a lot of backing. I've seen it at the end of my river. Um, so you know, the turnaround that we have there has an 80 foot. It has probably 120 foot of turnaround space in it because we have 60 ft to the west and we have aboutund and some feet to the to the east and we don't have a writing way in here that would be have an 80 foot. So I mean I'm not sure if you want to see a circular it won't be as good as this and I still think it meets this ordinance

my opinion. May I interject for a second? Sure. Chief Tyler, would you say that what he said is accurate on the 80 foot turnaround for you guys? I would accept a challenge. That's fair. Going to have a radio. Motor homes with a vehicle on the back of it don't back up either. That's in the spot now. Don't Don't miss your spot. motor homes with a vehicle attached to the back, a tow vehicle, don't back up either. Can't back up. Well, you probably know that though. I do know that. I'm sure.

The only other one the only other points I want to make here is that I I think that the issues that you raise can be solved with there's a requirement. Many of them are requirements of the ordinance anyway. They're just important. suggest they are enforcement issues as as uh as Casey had indicated before the uh the 180 days and being on uh travel worthy the road worthy uh the having the the log of the leases and the owners and their addresses and all that. Those are all requirements of the orbits. We have to do that anyway. So we have no problem with doing that. Um if you if you want some kind of annual or bianual or semianual certification compliance with the the lease issues Mr. Cashion has already indicated his willingness to do that. Um remember that this site could be developed with 24 or 25 single family residences. I mean as a matter of right in the district. So what we're proposing here from a traffic standpoint is probably less of a an issue than having 25 or 24 single family detached units on the property given the number of trips per day and the like. So please don't consider this just with respect to being vacant land and having a proposal on vacant land. You have to consider what else could be there and whether this is better, worse or about the same as I would ask you to keep that in mind. Um, and there's a much discussion about harmony. I mean, harmony isn't just zoning stuff. Harmony has to do with what the character of the area and with proposal in the context of the area in

which it's proposed. And you heard Mr. Bourne and Mr. Cashion and and Mr. Deluchia all talk about what's around this property. You have the existing mobile RV park right next door. You have some commercial uses down up to the north, I suppose. And you got some residential uses including one with a warehouse, some that are perhaps dilapidated mobile homes, others are our modest single family residences all in the area. There are trees. We're going to preserve as many trees as we can on the site. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why we're doing the 18 units is so that we don't have to do a big septic field where we're going to have to take down a bunch of trees. So, we we've tried to be as uh as harmonious as accommodating to the existing environment. Um u you know, this is a place where people will come. You you'll be attracting families and visitors. So, you're consistent with those issues of of the land use ordinance and I submit that we presented to you sufficient evidence for all four findings, compliance with the code, those things that you don't think we comply with, attach conditions. It's easy.

I will say one thing about harmony. I love the word flow and harmony. It's kind of like as an attorney, it's kind like reasonable, right? But I find to be in harmony, you may not be what you find to be reasonable, I may not find to be reasonable. It may be in the eye of the beholder. That's correct. Yeah, I I understand that. Okay. But it's also if there's some objective standard that someone will look at. No, I understand. But you might like green, I might like yellow. I mean, it's

if I could maybe, you know, along with that point to clarify a little better is we keep using the word harmony, but it's harmony in relation to the entire sentence, which is harmony in the area which is located to be in general conformity with a comprehensive plan. So, so we've talked about ordinance, but we haven't talked about the comprehensive plan. When I talk about the comprehensive plan, the land use plan that was put together by the town as a guiding document. Um, for instance, uh on page 39 of the uh land use plan, they state, use a future land use map and character area description as a guide when making land use and development permitting decisions. This is especially relevant to the reasonzonings and decisions of where to extend public infrastructure and services development within the horizontal boundaries of the twoft sea level rise area that I was talking about earlier. Um have specific concern here. So when you talk about harmony and and compliance conformity with the land use plan, I don't see the congruence.

Well, I mean I would disagree. Um I think that uh with respect to raising the pad so we're above the uh the two foot and the streets we're above the two foot uh flood flood line. Um the property is zoned uh RV or VR3. I mean what we're proposing is consistent with the zoning which this is special use which this council not necessarily you guys but this council has said is an appropriate use in that district subject to condition a special

so we're talking about special use so having said that further in in the you know the land use plan as as you know called out what is you know two the two areas is is in the accommodate and adapt and acknowledge and conserve.

And that acknowledge and conserve is pretty specific, you know, when it talks about what you're allowed to do. And in that it says discourage new development that relies on septic tanks and areas that will be inundated again with this twoft serise area. Um so that that becomes problematic as well when you talk about septic systems and and keeping with the land use and and with the conformity of it. Um there's and there's there's plenty of other things. some uh to include under goal three policy 3.1 which Mr. Tesman pointed out manage land use and development to minimize primary and secondary impacts on resources and existing residents through standards for development. Um I mean there's a the whole

I don't see how we don't like that. And then 4.1 encourage the preservation of maritime forest, flood planes, marshes, and wetlands through development regulations and land protection initiatives. In fact, I think when you look at the definition of acknowledge and preserve, it recommends um that you look at ways to disassemble existing structures in those areas. So, we're talking about proposing building something in an area that we're recommending in our land use plan. Now, I I love this notion of a RV park and it's it's great. I'm on the recreation committee, been for the last few years, and I love the idea of recreation and and bringing it, but it's congruence with this land use plan, which is signed off by the town of Kittyhawk, um after, you know, as one of our uh witnesses indicated, a lot of money, time, and effort. Um, it's just not congruent with that as far as a in my opinion a a floor plan, a framework of which to operate to make these decisions.

I understand what you're saying. Again, I disagree. I mean, there'd be no property development of vacant property if we had to comply with the disassemble uh argument. Yeah. Well, how many how many places live in flood zones that, you know, they have to worry about this sort of thing? you know, you start we we allow this to happen and the next thing you know the entire, you know, Kittyhawks, you know, 30, 10, 20, 30 years. Not to mention, you know, 10 years down the road, all these 18 different septic systems that could be, you know, starting to cause problems, that sort of thing, which is a big problem along the entire, you know, beach community here. So,

I I submit that speculating about what might could possibly happen is an evidence.

Yeah. So what we do is we put measures in place to make sure that nobody walks on those those fields, right? Those septic fields. Well, the septic fields are in between every camp most campers, not every camper, but a lot of campers. How are you going to control people from, you know, walking on them and stuff? You look at the EPA standards, they say they recommend vegetation on top of them to make sure that you don't walk and smash down. And we're already talking a thin layer to begin with 30 inches deep before you hit that water level. You know, I don't care. You can build up several feet, but then again, land use plan calls out for making sure you don't use fill in these marshland areas because then it could run off and create different storm water issues. And I know we got infiltration basin and stuff, but

right. And the seping systems, I mean, as John Deluchia has said a few times, I mean, every yard in a single family residence has a separate system and it's if it's your backyard or your front yard, people are walking on that, playing whiffle ball on it or or parking on them, parking on them, accidentally, but that does make it right. Right.

And our job is to make sure that we keep compliant with a framework and a way of thinking and and that's all I'm doing. just like um Mayor Promp there pointed out, you know, I've got an ornate so I got to go by this. You know, that's legit and maybe there's ways we can work around to fix those, but there's a bigger elephant in the room for me and that's this land use plan. And and um if we don't use that, then the next property thereafter and the next property thereafter, we got to be consistent as a council and as a town. So, understood that. Thank you.

But I mean, that's really my closing statement. I would ask the board to find in favor of the of the council, excuse me, to find in favor of the SP application. If there are conditions that you uh feel we need to uh apply in order to feel comfortable approving, let's talk about that and see we've already agreed to two or three different conditions. Um I would like to try to make that happen. And I mean I suppose if if otherwise council members are generally satisfied. I mean we talked about continuing that's not our preference. We talked about continuing the hearing if necessary in order to address those couple of concerns. We would be willing to talk about that too. But again our first preference would be approval or even a conditional approval tonight. And we think you can do that. Thank you. Okay. May I have a motion to come out of public hearing?

So moved, Miss Mayor. Second. Second. Thank you. All right. Um, we are now back in regular session. Council, do you have comments? Oh, excuse me. Again. My goodness. All in favor? I. All opposed. We're back in regular session now. Thank you very much. I do have um do I have a motion to do um do you have questions?

And I'll just to keep it orderly so that way no matter which way this thing goes for the record for the minute taking it for Rob later and preparing whatever order prepared. I think let's just do it this way. Since p section 42-100 B8 in order to approve this application you guys must make findings that proposed special use does four certain things. So let's take each one one by one. Let's start with a to you guys in the discussion you guys have. I'm not saying vote just discuss. Uh, does does the proposed special use materially or do you make a finding that it does not materially endanger the public health or safety?

Uh, so you've got a find that it does not endanger public health or safety.

Leeching septic tanks into there going into Kittyhawk Bay. My boss died two years ago from a bacteria infection and and they pretty much directly relate that to EC coli from the bacteria coming out of the septic. So when there is assumptions that you know when the man said you know how do we do it? I'm a waterman. I work on the water. Years ago crabs didn't die in the bottom of our pots. When the water gets stagnant the bacterias didn't go it didn't happen. Now we have dead crabs. Every time the tide quits moving, when the Kool-Aid separates, I say the bad water sinks to the bottom and everything down there dies. Um, the bacteria is real. We've had several deaths here on the Outer Banks. We're closing our our popular swimming areas, one right after the other in the peak of our tourist season. We're telling people, don't get in the water. As a commercial fisherman, and I'm sure my fellow commercial fishermanmen are joined with me, we worry that someday somebody will say, "Hey, y'all can't eat the seafood coming out of the Alamar Sound, Pamelo Sound, Noose River. It's a scare. We make a living, you know, like you make a living off campgrounds. We make a living off this water. And we are very concerned about what's going in it." So, I think this is very dense, me personally, but we're we're talking about endangering. So, I think the proofs in the pudding of the bacteria and the state shutting down Jockeyy's Ridge swimming hole, Collington Harbor Park, Southern Shores, Boat uh Park, all of those are closed down every summer when they test because of the bacteria. More and more of the island. Look, we're floating barrier sand. We we can't we can't hold much more. I know it it's it seems dense to

me and I worry about the safety of the people around the kids playing in the little say it rains and a kid running out there. I mean that's a lot of septic tanks leeching in the ash swamp. You know the septic since you brought that up. Is that does that have anything to do with the lowline area that we're talking about such as the technology it could serve? Uh yes. And you know I we all operate on septic tanks and mine is just as guilty

as yours would be. I'm not saying mine's any different. I don't think they're not a very good method anymore. U when I first built my house, my yard didn't flood. My septic stayed dry all the time and 30 years in the last 10 it it it's just the water tables rising. So I have concerns about the health. I have the concerns about the health of the fish and the turtles and everything that's in that ashwamp. That swamp's full of white egrets. So you know sometimes 20 30 at a time that come there every single day that'll be drinking that water you know. So yeah, I I have concerns about the health of not only people but of of the nature that's in Ashwan. So that's addressing that.

I'd like to add to that the public safety um adding additional flow to a curb cut so close to an existing intersection without hearing from an expert and in that traffic field. I'm unsure that it's adding it could be additional public safety or lack of public safety. No traffic study presentation. No expert testifying as to those items.

Correct. I I as well with the traffic have an issue with um safety simply from the standpoint I know that fire chief talked to not have it some concern but I just I worry that if something happens a flash fire or any you know anything like that that you know or mass casually you know fire blows up propane tank blows up

and next thing you know if I was there I'm going to jump in my RV and I'm going to get out as fast I cuz I don't want the guy next door catching me on fire. And now I'm just blocking the road for any, you know, cars coming in and out. Same lane all the way back to a dead end just doesn't sit well with me. So that's that's a concern I have as well. And I'll also add, we don't know what the easement is. It could be 10 ft.

She could put a fence on both sides and we couldn't get a fire truck through there, period. We don't really know what the easement is. So right now we don't really know how wide the easement is to get onto this property. So we don't know what the passing was going to be. I do know the easement at one time was not sufficient for another person to build an RV park until they got a rideway. Now why it's different here I'm not quite sure. Okay. I'm going to go back to Councilman Puit with, you know, with the ordinances and making sure we're complying. Well, that's up next. That's B.

So, if we're ready to move on, we'll go to B, which is is there a finding and David, you commission, Councilman Hines, lead off with that. Does this particular application meet all required conditions and specifications of our ordinance? For me, it does not. Okay. You want to elaborate? pretty much going back to the first round of questions. There's just some like the easement. I mean, there's unknowns. I mean, road length and I bring up some issues that I that I took down while y'all were discussing. I'm not totally I like the idea of having Right. Right. We're just talking very particular as to what our ordinance says.

Uh there was the issue with the 80oot right ofway uh turnaround in diameter. If I recall correctly, I believe Rob testified that he did not believe that the proposal itself evidenced what the intent of that uh particular ordinance provision was. The applicant of course had an engineer that said it uh yes put things out there for y'all's consideration. The other issue I believe uh Councilman Tilllet brought up was that the issue of the road into the park not exceeding 1,000 ft being measured from the park entrance. I do believe the testimony was that the park entrance was going to be from starting at the essentially the public right of way at the bomb property and measuring from there it did exceed 1,000 ft um maybe,090 I believe is what Rob's report said

and there was a shall in front of that as well. Y'all have heard my spiel on my thoughts on the shout. So, uh, those are two that I recall, but if there are any, there was one more. And, and we had talked about moving the recreation facility. I mean, I can't see a kids playground going on top of, um, a septic field behind the bath house. Um, but there was, you know, adjustments that could be made for that. All right. Uh, C, uh, will not, you have to make a finding that it will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. So, it's kind of two-part here. Actually, could I could I go back to Oh, sure.

to be B. I'm sorry. Absolutely. Um, but there is, you know, we talked about required conditions specifications. I and and this is could be my opinion, but um specifications for me is that the Camelan use plan is is a guiding document. D you're going to and that come that comes in on D as well. Absolutely correct. Yep. Yep. So, so as the C again is will it or I'm sorry, will it not substantially injure the value of adjoining property? I would submit that I think Mr. Bourne's report on value was sufficient. That's my legal opinion on that just to

cut that short and suffice. Now, there is another provision here that says or a public nuisance. So, that's another item with C. I don't know if you guys have any comments on whether or not this would constitute a public dues potentially.

The only thing I'd like is when the appraiser did the the adjoining property and you look at the commercial district, the only reason that that was allowed is because there was a trade you go commercial and they gave us 540 acres to the coastal reserve. So it it it really isn't in harmony. But in order to get 540 acres that were were never going to be ever disturbed again, it it was a kind of a kind of a trade back. That's the reason that when you see the garden center, the provision was if they'd let them build the communication tower, the storage building in the garden center, you give the town 540. But it's really, you know, yeah, it's in harmony, but they paid, you know, with a lot of land. So, there was a good return

for for public nuisance. Um, my only concern would be, you know, noise levels around, you know, your nice quiet pond if I live there. Now, it's going to have 30 more sites of people recreating and that sort of thing, which is which is good. But I do appreciate the current owner right now ensuring that his current property is has been cleaned up and taken care of and I very much appreciate that. So I think that you would be able to keep that hopefully under control. So

okay, anyone else on that? If not, we'll go to D, which I've heard a lot of commentary about during this proceeding. Uh we'll break it down into two parts. A will the application be in harmony with the area in which it is located? That's item one. Thoughts on the harmonious nature. And it is true when you're looking at this. One of the considerations you have to make are not the only, but the uses that that surround that the particular uh proposed development. Uh that that is certainly a consideration. You're not saying it's the only, but it is certainly a consideration when you uh

I don't find it to be nonharmonious. Personally, so you find it to be in harmony. You you you believe it is harmony. I don't think you'll even really see it, but Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. I don't think it's in harmony in with that amount of density. I believe the site pan could be modified with less and um and be way more. You know, they keep talking about trees, leaving trees, and I don't know what do I count? Eight, I think, John. I mean, the rest of it's over in the swamp that you couldn't cut down anyway. I don't think I don't I don't see but about one, two,

three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 10, 11. No, you're not counting up in the swamp, are you? are down in the repaired buffer. I'm talking about right out where the trailers are. I only see eight. When you see all those little flower things, those are all the trees that were Are you talking in a swamp? No, not in swamp. But on the east side in the buffer, but actually out in the trailer park itself on the flat. Let me just count a few of them. I got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 just on this lower half alone.

Yeah, but I said but you're counting all down in the orange and all that. I'm talking But how about in the white area? The white area is the swamp up at the top. No, no, no, no. The white clear area where all the spaces are. You're talking on the east side. There still is trees being left in those areas. But the question is is since we're talking about trees and picking numbers of trees, how many are being cut down as opposed to being left? That's not in your ordinance. That's not in ordinance. No, but it's in the land use plan. We went out there. We had them allocated. We had them allocated by the survey.

And then we tried to work around the ones that we could. I mean, I'm I'm a big preservation tree preservation type person. We've There's a lot of trees on a lot of that I've done. Sure. But you got to look at the the uses. Yeah. Well, I mean I and I've also got to look at the C land use plan which you know says we can't be chopping down trees, you know, um uh minimizing impacts. Minimizing.

That's the very next item in D. So go ahead and discuss that whether or not it's a general conformity with the comprehensive plan. I'd like to make a statement that I agree with the entire uh statement Councilman Mance said about the policies in Melany's use plan during and that was uh while Mr. Hornik was performing his closing argument. Is that or closing comments? That's correct. Yes, that's correct. Got it. And Mr. Mans, do you have any other comments on the land use plan issue? No, I just and or the adapted conserve and acknowledge it concern.

Yeah, I mean nothing that that I've haven't already already said unless it unless it needs to be repeating. No, I mean if you guys all recall uh what Mr. Man said while on the record uh while Mr. Hornick was uh issuing comments while on the record uh if he adopts those comments right now, I believe that to be sufficient. I think he does. All right. Any more discussion then? And y'all can mayor, please take it away and vote on each item if you would. However, just go down A through D. Um, just as to whether or not these Can you read each item again?

Yeah. You want me to do it that way? Let's do Let's do it that way. Okay. So, I would Now you guys are going to are going to vote, but we're going to vote on the whole thing. Either we're going to approve this site plan or not. I mean, we're not going to sit here and prove each little condition. No, no, no, no, no. What? Well, we could do it another way. You have to make findings on all of these. Okay. So, that's the only reason I was going to say, so if any of these are a no, then

it doesn't you're not going to likely approve. you're not going to approve it because you must make findings uh that it does not materially endanger the public health or safety. And do do you vote on that particular issue?

I don't believe we have enough evidence to prove that it or not vote but just the answer I think was no to that based on your discussion. Um it it you don't have enough evidence to determine whether it does or not. You got does not meet all required conditions and specifications based on your comments. It does not

u do think you guys agree that it will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property uh or be a public nuisance. That was agreed upon. And then however said that he did not believe it would be in harmony with the area in which it was located. And then uh Councilman Vance made comments that were adopted by Councilman Tilllet concerning the general conformity or lack of general conformity with the comprehensive plan. So ha having made those particular findings now it could go to a traditional motion.

Okay. What do you what do you want to do with this matter? Do I have a a motion? Madame Mayor, I move to deny the proposed conditional use permit or special use permit for an RV park at 4352B the Woods Road uh due to the findings that the attorney just listed and that's why I did it that way. Yes. Yes. So, that is the motion. Same second and then I ask a question in between the voting. Sure. So if it gets

well actually let's get a second first and then you can discuss. Second. Okay. So if it gets denied tonight they can still come back and modify and bring everything back. Craig if there right if if there are modifications to the to the actual back and fix the things we had concerns about.

They've heard our concern said on whether or not you're it or not. Sorry, it doesn't be a that's what's on the table. Come back. Let's go to something easy. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Santa Claus will be late coming.

He's not happy.

Yeah. Great. We're gonna All right. Appreciate that. Sorry about that. Y'all that that's that's fine. You just hop. You end up in court over stuff like that. That That's not making those specific findings is is where we run into issue. But y'all did you did great in that. All right. All right. Next, we need to nominate a recreation committee member. Yes, ma'am. Madame Mayor, I'd like to nominate Linda Allgood for a position on the recreation committee. I'll make a second to that.

Okay, great. All in favor? I I got that one right. Y I'm so proud of that. Yeah, that's right. Get back to my Okay. Um, Melody, do you have anything to say or do we need a intermission? What do we need to do here? Do I have anything to say? Actually, not much today.

Um, but I just wanted to wish everyone a happy new year. Uh, 2025 was a year where a lot of things came together for our town. Um, and I feel like I think everyone feels like we've made some solid progress on some key priorities and while keeping the day-to-day services of our community going and and running smoothly. So, I'm so proud of our staff for their day-to-day efforts, their commitment to training and the handling new products and priorities. Um, as we move into 2026, the town is in good place. 2026, the town is in good place. We have better facilities, stronger systems, a skilled workforce, and a a clearer path forward. Um, speaking of that, you on your consent agenda, you approved the budget calendar. Um, that will be in the forefront of at least most of our department head's minds and my mind and even you guys. That will be filtering down to you. We approved the calendar. Our um budget retreat where we all get together, which is a public meeting, will be held on March the 18th at 9:00 a.m. uh we believe at the police department this year. Um, also just kind of following up, um, you had at your places tonight policies that were given to you a while back that were we you asked to kind of put aside until February. Um, again, I'm hoping that we can work through these things and any questions that you have, um, maybe and not have a three-hour meeting about them. Self-serving maybe. But um yeah, so you have these and I hope you have ample time to review it and ask questions. And other than that, Christmas tree pickup

is ongoing and place your undecorated tensil-free Christmas tree along the curb side and uh they'll be picked up in a timely manner. Um you can also drop your tree off at the Kittyhawk bath house and that way it will definitely be used for doing restoration. That's all I have but from the town of Fanny. I've talked happy new year guys and uh what a beating to start the new year. I'm telling you what three hour three-hour get out. What an initiation here. But nothing else for me. All right. And town council Dylan, do you have anything?

Just want to send a special thanks to Rob for his hard work in the past two quasi judicial hearings. Month to month, back to back. Nice work. Everything was very laid out and we appreciate your hard work on all of it. Anytime I have questions for Rob, I call him or email him and I get an response just like that and it's very appreciated, Rob. Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, Rob, as always. Um uh we had a a chance to go to the Wright brothers and celebration and we had the honor of the the students had built a an airplane. And I thought how neat it was that the educators and the park service of our area came together to rebuild an airplane, first one since Orville and Wilbur built it on that site. And I just want to give a shout out to our educators, Mr. Bass Knight for a fine job I think he's doing with our school, our schools, and all the teachers that are educating our kids here. And that was very impressive. Uh um what I saw. That's it. Well said.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Did you have anything tonight, David? Oh, congratulations to the new recreation committee appointee. And that's it. Okay. And Pete.

Yes, ma'am. Um, just real quick, um, want to thank Melody for the year wrap-up. Um, what a fantastic time. Everything from the parade with the fire department and police department running that thing, that was just amazing. Um, I know we didn't have a chance to thank you guys for that. So, amazing job. Um, thank you for all that write up. I think that should go somewhere and social media, all the stuff that you the town has accomplished in last year. It's eye watering. So, thank you for putting that together. I know that takes time, especially when you're getting ready to go on your holiday. Um, and I want to thank everybody tonight, everybody that participated. Um, these things aren't hard and I know it's hard to step up and um, have the courage to say what's on your mind and all those that spent all the hours preparation and and um, you know, all we can do is hope that we made the right decision tonight and thank everybody for all their input. So,

okay.

And I would like to thank all the department heads for the work that went into our Christmas caring van. It was amazing. It was wonderful. And to see all the children light up and and make it possible for the parents to get pictures with Santa. And it it was just it was amazing from start to finish. Safe. Everything went quite well. And I I appreciate being a part of that. Um, and there's one more thing we have to recognize or we'd like to recognize, and that is Melody Kapton's 15 years of service to this town. I don't like

Okay. Oh, yeah. Thank you everyone. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Now, thank you.